Shiloh Altar: Biblical Archaeology Provides Evidence of Ancient Religious Center
For decades archaeologists have been searching for evidence to support the hypothesis that Shiloh served as a religious center in ancient times. Now, a stone altar dated to the Iron Age‚ÄĒthe period of Israelite kings‚ÄĒwas accidentally exposed during a dig conducted by an archaeological staff officer of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria.
The altar was found amid the stones of a wall dated to the Byzantine period. Apparently, the Byzantines removed the altar from its original location in Tel Shiloh and used it to build a structure at the foot of the tel. The discovery is the first tangible evidence that Shiloh was a cultic center prior to and during the First Temple period. Previously, the only evidence for that theory were descriptions in the Bible about the Tabernacle at the time of Joshua and later in the time of Eli the high priest and the prophet Samuel....
Aquinas could be right on some things, Neil, and of course wrong on others. when the Devil quoted Scripture to Christ, he could be right in a limited view, but of course Christ countered with Scripture and looking at the complete Scripture, defeated the reasoning of Satan. The views of Aquinas are defeated in the same way, but for naturalists, The Narture of God--Part 1
Hi Neil, it bothers me when anyone makes a blanket statement about attacking Roman Catholics/Roman Catholocism. Once in a while someone makes a snide remark that I wish I could delete with my magic wand, but other than that, the posts are all about reaching out with the truth; cold hard facts, Romes own words, and the Bible. What you and some others apparently view as attacks and hatred is to me people who genuinly care and are concerned about those who are currently embroiled in its heresies and frozen in place as a result of its fear mongering. The comments are always, for the most part, based on cold, hard facts using the bible and Romes own words to convict and condemn them, not useless opinions or nonsensical, illogical, unprovable rants. I don't understand how some view the exchanges as attacks. Maybe you didn't mean to make a blanket statement, but rather, had a couple of people in mind? Not looking to argue here, Neil...I've had my share of that...ha-ha, but I don't understand how genuine care and concern by most is sometimes misconstrued as maliciousness.
Neil, you've been having a conversation with me and I can tell you I have never read Aquinas or the other guy you are talking about.
I am only reading the bible -- that's it.
I find it humorous that you keep thinking I've read them, I mean, maybe they just read the same bible I did.
I've looked briefly at catholic natural law because of something given to me... and out of curiosity for evangelicals who think taking abortifacients is ok (obvious lack of teaching on implications of Romans 1) -- but their ideas are steeped in the works based theology, seemed they took the bible leisurely -- and I turned it off.
so I was left with the bible, which is what I thought we were talking about, but it seems you've been talking to me about the philosophical historical perspective of natural law while I've been pulling phrases from Romans 1 like "natural use" and saying, look, this chapter is about "natural use".
I don't need volumes and philosophy to see what Romans 1 plainly says. but you do have my curiosity up about Aquinas.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, I would say that God's existence is obvious from observation,
So Where's the Beef, Jim? Easy to say, hard to do. I already said below that the Empiricist take on Romans 1 is not merely faulty, it opens a lot of holes which Aquinas, a brilliant man, spent volumes trying to fill, yet unsuccessfully at that.
It is ironic that in spite of all the eager attacks on the RCC on this site by you & others, so many ‚ÄúProtestants‚ÄĚ here apparently embrace the philosophy of Rome's most important theologian.
Neil, I would say that God's existence is obvious from observation, as I think the Book of Romans the first chapter points out. But, it takes specific revelation to save, and of course that does only come from the Bible. From a man unappreciated by his own church and children, the following one will see why he wasn't appreciated by his church.
J.C. Ryle wrote: I do not doubt that the one volume of Pilgrim's Progress, written by a man who knew hardly any book but his Bible, and was ignorant of Greek and Latin, will prove in the last day to have done more for the benefit of the world, than all the works of the schoolmen put together....It is an evil day when books are not valued in the Church. But it is amazing to observe how vast a man's intellectual attainments may be, and yet how little he may know of the grace of God. I have no doubt the Authorities of Oxford in the last century, knew more of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, than Wesley or Whitefield. But they knew little of the Gospel of Christ. Infallibility is not to be found among learned men, but in the Bible.
Of course there is General & Special Revelation, but as I've said below, that is beside my point. It is *how* General Revelation works that is my question: ‚ÄúAquinas believed we could learn about God by studying the world.‚ÄĚ
Exactly. And this project has been a miserable failure, an easy target for subsequent skeptics over many centuries. This is just one way Rome & her Protestant imitators make Christianity look foolish & perhaps hastened the modern meltdown in organized Christianity.
And as a practical matter, Aquinas's ‚Äúproofs‚ÄĚ in Summa Theologica, borrowed from Aristotle, are complex, voluminous, & thus hard for laymen to digest. No wonder Rome insists that theology is best left to professionals. And it also implies negligence in Special Revelation; why didn't the inspired writers prove God's existence this way?
I say God's existence cannot & need not be proven, as man already knows about Him from birth without observing a thing.
Neil wrote: That is, did Paul gain his knowledge of ‚Äúnatural use‚ÄĚ from empirical observation like Aristotle? Not necessarily:
I woke up thinking of Psalm 19 and I know that I often sing it when I view the amazing display of stars in a place with very little light - no street lamps or true religion to speak of.
I checked what David Dickson said: Point 3. on verse 1 "Though his glory be shown to all men, yet it is the illuminate child of God that can observe it; for he that setteth it forth to others, did it by inspiration of the Lord's own Spirit: David is a prophet who here is stirred up to point unto us this lesson most worthy of our observation. For in substance the heavens declare that they are not their own maker but they are made by one infinite, incomprehensible, omnipotent, everlasting, good, kind and glorious God. And the firmament (taking it for the region of the air and place of the stars) declares how curiously he can adorn the work of his hands and how powerfully he can put glory abundant on the creature (men and angels?) though it have no matter in it to make in glorious."
strange, isn't it, somehow when we say the words "natural use" it makes us think that God ordained a natural way for the human body, and that hmsx goes against the "natural use" as is literally what is said there? Paul does refer to nature in this chapter. yep. that's the whole point of it -- God has given us the capability to understand his invisible qualities through the things He has made, and the perversions go against what He has made, the natural use of the thing he has made.
penny wrote: the women changed their "natural use into that which is against nature" the men, leaving the "natural use" because they did not retain God in their knowledge (the mind corrupted), they became all these evil things. yes, a protestant will have a hard time with catholic natural law...
If that was intended to convince me of Natural Law, it doesn't, for it commits the Fallacy of Equivocation. What grounds do you have to infer that because Paul refers to nature, he uses it in the same sense Aristotle or Aquinas did? That is, did Paul gain his knowledge of ‚Äúnatural use‚ÄĚ from empirical observation like Aristotle? Not necessarily: the natural use of man & woman can be learned from Genesis 4 with no observation whatever.
And even if he does mean the same thing, you still cannot by induction assume everything else Aristotle/Aquinas taught about nature is sound.
the result of not being thankful upon seeing the attributes of God is that Provision from God becomes the object of their worship.
the women changed their "natural use into that which is against nature"
the men, leaving the "natural use"
because they did not retain God in their knowledge (the mind corrupted), they became all these evil things.
yes, a protestant will have a hard time with catholic natural law.... but
scripture here is clear, there is a "natural" function or design that God expects us to follow, and hmsxl is an abomination because it perverts the natural order.
there is a natural order to family as well.
two disembodied souls, however, would not be sinning to fall in love I guess. but God's order is body, spirit, soul. he has yet to create a man who is only mind. we are not spirit beings, we are human beings, both physical and spiritual.
there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust -- Acts 24:15
this is central doctrine, physical resurrection.
Christ is King of all things, its not just about getting our thoughts in order, its how we live, and living with a thankful heart is a huge part of the sanctified life. Happy Thanksgiving!
Werner G. wrote: They didn't need to everything was in the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is fact. From the days of the 5th century Augustine a good Calvinist preached the Bible truth. In those same days the free willer-salvation by works group came out led by Pelagius. Today the RCC is led by the Pelagian theory of works based religion. So are the Arminians and Liberals. The 16th century Reformation separated the Reformed Biblical Christians from the Pelagian heretical RCC, and the Protestants were born and the Reformed Biblical Church came into being. Reformed or Calvinism is not simply the works of John Calvin, it is Biblical Christianity without anything added by man. Sovereignty of God, predestination and total depravity are absolute Biblical truths.
I agree. While we might disagree on the exclusivity of understanding required for salvation(ie, like for an arminian or catholic 2b saved), I firmly hold to the TRUTHS you have so well represented. When the LORD revealed this to me, it was the WISDOM of the universe being opened to me as I didnt grow up in the Church. What Kings, Wise Men and Priests had so desired to see, what they would give their fortunes and honour for, I received by by pure unmerited GRACE.
Romans 12; For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
Faith is key and the gifts given by the Spirit of Christ for pastor/teachers through the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Pastor/teachers should be gifted qualified brethren. Knox's First and Second Books of Discipline would do much for the present day ministry if rightly considered. Biblical sense, that Neil calls common sense.
mourner wrote: What do you think qualifies you to refute the Puritans exegesis you haven't read? ‚Ä¶ I'm not trying to be smart but why do you think you are so vastly intellectually superior that you can question all past and present interpretation?
The Puritans wrote a lot of sound stuff; I'm just saying, so far as I can tell, they neglected to exegete this passage the way they did elsewhere, despite being far better scholars than I am. I just looked at Calvin, & he also gave it short shrift, paying no attention to the Greek, & making an obscure allusion to Hebrews about a mirror. Can someone find it?
Past negligence is no excuse for continuing it now. Do we believe in Semper Reformanda or not?
Neil wrote: Wasn't that what Catholics also said to the Reformers? But Appeal to Antiquity is a fallacy.
The Reformers really didnt offer new ideas, but rather refined ideas that had circulated throughout the Church over the centuries. Hussites and Waldensians would be examples of those ideas manifested in actual practicing Churches. With the advent of the Printing Press, these refined ideas could be delivered to the people and further modified. Im not saying that this negates your view, but just raises the bar for acceptance
I know it is not lacking but the Banner of Truths publications I read are not the same as say Poole's Latin synopsis. Maybe you need other sources. What do you think qualifies you to refute the Puritans exegesis you haven't read? Are you a language scholar or a computer language accessed expert interpreter?
I'm not trying to be smart but why do you think you are so vastly intellectually superior that you can question all past and present interpretation? Faith seems relative to utterance and unction. I'm more clear on what you don't believe than what you do. I find that confusing.
What do you think we should believe about the Romans text for I'm still unclear?