The Bible: Archaelogical Finds

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Each of these denominations have a slightly different interpretation of the bible. Which one is right?

Christianity does have various denominations. Asking, "Which one is right," is unwarranted; no disrepect, but asking such a question reveals your lack of knowledge concerning the Christian faith and Bible. It is a "fair" question, nonetheless! All Christian denominations are in complete agreement regarding the fundamentals of Christianity, i.e., the Trinity, deity and resurrection of Jesus. Disagreement among the Christian Church entails peripheral matters, i.e., baptism, the validity of purgotary, and the age of the universe.

Analogy: take baseball, for example, each team has different players and management; and each team has different views on how the game should be won. Regardess, all teams must play by the rules! And all teams agree with the rules. Such is identical to Christian denominations.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Christianity does have various denominations. Asking, "Which one is right," is unwarranted; no disrepect, but asking such a question reveals your lack of knowledge concerning the Christian faith and Bible. It is a "fair" question, nonetheless! All Christian denominations are in complete agreement regarding the fundamentals of Christianity, i.e., the Trinity, deity and resurrection of Jesus. Disagreement among the Christian Church entails peripheral matters, i.e., baptism, the validity of purgotary, and the age of the universe.

Analogy: take baseball, for example, each team has different players and management; and each team has different views on how the game should be won. Regardess, all teams must play by the rules! And all teams agree with the rules. Such is identical to Christian denominations.

Please stop it with the condescending approach. To ask which is right, leads to my point that none of them are fully right. Why is it not warranted? You say things like this, but never say way or supply support to your claim.

Not true... There are some, on the list above, that do not believe in the trinity. Also, religions like Mormons are so different that some Christians do not view them as Christian.

Your Analogy can be applied to all religions in the world.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please stop it with the condescending approach. To ask which is right, leads to my point that none of them are fully right. Why is it not warranted? You say things like this, but never say way or supply support to your claim.

Not true... There are some, on the list above, that do not believe in the trinity. Also, religions like Mormons are so different that some Christians do not view them as Christian.

The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to "reform" the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries. The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with "methods" for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as the method of baptism; the availability of Lord's supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; the role works play in salvation; pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the "sign" gifts in the modern era, and the list could go on and on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original "mainline" denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others. Some denominations emphasize slight doctrinal differences, but more often they simply offer different styles of worship to fit the differing tastes and preferences of Christians. But make no mistake: we, as believers, must be of one mind on the essentials of the faith, but beyond that there is a great deal of latitude in how a Christian should worship in a corporate setting. This latitude is what causes so many different "flavors" of Christianity. The Presbyterian Church of Mbale, Uganda, has a style of worship much different from the Presbyterian Church of Denver, but their doctrinal stand is the same. Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of "iron sharpening iron" (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

When looking for a church, the believer should start with its Statement of Faith. What that church believes and practices should be in line with the doctrines of faith as outlined by the Bible. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, the authority of the Bible is the governing truth, the sufficiency of Scripture is affirmed, where we can grow in our relationships with the Lord, where we can minister to the body with our spiritual gifts, spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually.

The Downside of Christian Denominations:

There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. There were those who thought that they should follow Paul and those who thought they should follow the teaching of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 1:12, "What I am saying is this: each of you says, "I'm with Paul," or "I'm with Apollos," or "I'm with Cephas," or "I'm with Christ." This alone should tell you what Paul thought of denominations or anything else that separates and divides the body. But let’s look further; in verse 13, Paul asks very pointed questions, "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?" This makes clear how Paul feels, he (Paul) is not the Christ, he is not the one crucified and his message has never been one that divides the church or would lead someone to worship Paul instead of Christ. Obviously, according to Paul, there is only one church and one body of believers and anything that is different weakens and destroys the church (see verse 17). He makes this point stronger in 3:4 by saying that anyone who says they are of Paul or of Apollos is carnal.

Some of the problems we are faced with today as we look at denominationalism and its more recent history:

1. Denominations are based on disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. An example would be the meaning and purpose of baptism. Is baptism a requirement for salvation or is it symbolic of the salvation process? There are denominations on both sides of this issue and have used the issue to separate and form denominations.

2. Disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture are taken personally and become points of contention. This leads to arguments which can and have done much to destroy the witness of church.

3. The church should be able to resolves it differences inside the body, but once again history tells us that this doesn't happen. Today the media uses our differences against us to demonstrate that we are not unified in thought or purpose.

4. Denominations are used by man out of self-interest. There are denominations today that are in a state of self-destruction as they are being led into apostasy by those who are promoting their personal agendas.

5. The value of unity is found in the ability to pool our gifts and resources to promote the Kingdom to a lost world. This runs contrary to divisions caused by denominationalism.

What is a believer/skeptic to do? Should we ignore denominations, should we just not go to church and worship on our own at home?

The answer to both questions is no. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, where you as an individual can have a personal relationship with the Lord, where you can join in Biblical ministries that are spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually. Pick a church on the basis of its relationship to Christ, how well it is serving the community. Pick a church where the pastor is preaching the Gospel without fear and is encouraged to do so. Christ and His church is all about your relationship to Him and to each other. As believers, there are certain basic doctrines that we must believe, but beyond that there is latitude on how we can serve and worship; it is this latitude that is the only good reason for denominations. This is diversity and not disunity. The first allows us to be individuals in Christ, the latter divides and destroys.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your Analogy can be applied to all religions in the world.

This is true; of course! But not all religions can be correct. And for the record, Mormons are not Christian.

Originally posted by ushomefree
This is true; of course! But not all religions can be correct.

How skeptical of you

do you follow it to its true end though?

"There is no reason to assume that any religion can be correct"

Originally posted by ushomefree
The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to "reform" the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries. The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with "methods" for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as the method of baptism; the availability of Lord's supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; the role works play in salvation; pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the "sign" gifts in the modern era, and the list could go on and on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original "mainline" denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others. Some denominations emphasize slight doctrinal differences, but more often they simply offer different styles of worship to fit the differing tastes and preferences of Christians. But make no mistake: we, as believers, must be of one mind on the essentials of the faith, but beyond that there is a great deal of latitude in how a Christian should worship in a corporate setting. This latitude is what causes so many different "flavors" of Christianity. The Presbyterian Church of Mbale, Uganda, has a style of worship much different from the Presbyterian Church of Denver, but their doctrinal stand is the same. Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of "iron sharpening iron" (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

When looking for a church, the believer should start with its Statement of Faith. What that church believes and practices should be in line with the doctrines of faith as outlined by the Bible. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, the authority of the Bible is the governing truth, the sufficiency of Scripture is affirmed, where we can grow in our relationships with the Lord, where we can minister to the body with our spiritual gifts, spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually.

[b]The Downside of Christian Denominations:

There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. There were those who thought that they should follow Paul and those who thought they should follow the teaching of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 1:12, "What I am saying is this: each of you says, "I'm with Paul," or "I'm with Apollos," or "I'm with Cephas," or "I'm with Christ." This alone should tell you what Paul thought of denominations or anything else that separates and divides the body. But let’s look further; in verse 13, Paul asks very pointed questions, "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?" This makes clear how Paul feels, he (Paul) is not the Christ, he is not the one crucified and his message has never been one that divides the church or would lead someone to worship Paul instead of Christ. Obviously, according to Paul, there is only one church and one body of believers and anything that is different weakens and destroys the church (see verse 17). He makes this point stronger in 3:4 by saying that anyone who says they are of Paul or of Apollos is carnal.

Some of the problems we are faced with today as we look at denominationalism and its more recent history:

1. Denominations are based on disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. An example would be the meaning and purpose of baptism. Is baptism a requirement for salvation or is it symbolic of the salvation process? There are denominations on both sides of this issue and have used the issue to separate and form denominations.

2. Disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture are taken personally and become points of contention. This leads to arguments which can and have done much to destroy the witness of church.

3. The church should be able to resolves it differences inside the body, but once again history tells us that this doesn't happen. Today the media uses our differences against us to demonstrate that we are not unified in thought or purpose.

4. Denominations are used by man out of self-interest. There are denominations today that are in a state of self-destruction as they are being led into apostasy by those who are promoting their personal agendas.

5. The value of unity is found in the ability to pool our gifts and resources to promote the Kingdom to a lost world. This runs contrary to divisions caused by denominationalism.

What is a believer/skeptic to do? Should we ignore denominations, should we just not go to church and worship on our own at home?

The answer to both questions is no. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, where you as an individual can have a personal relationship with the Lord, where you can join in Biblical ministries that are spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually. Pick a church on the basis of its relationship to Christ, how well it is serving the community. Pick a church where the pastor is preaching the Gospel without fear and is encouraged to do so. Christ and His church is all about your relationship to Him and to each other. As believers, there are certain basic doctrines that we must believe, but beyond that there is latitude on how we can serve and worship; it is this latitude that is the only good reason for denominations. This is diversity and not disunity. The first allows us to be individuals in Christ, the latter divides and destroys. [/B]

This can be boiled down to one word: “because”. This is not a good answer to my question.

Originally posted by ushomefree
This is true; of course! But not all religions can be correct. And for the record, Mormons are not Christian.

From my point of view, Mormons are Christians.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
From my point of view, Mormons are Christians.

Why?

Quite off topic this.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Why?

They follow the teachings of Jesus.

Originally posted by queeq
Quite off topic this.

Ya, but what can I do?

Not respond anymore.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They follow the teachings of Jesus.

In what way?

Originally posted by ushomefree
In what way?

Originally posted by queeq
Not respond anymore.

We should move to the correct thread for this discussion.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=375165&from=thread&pagenumber=99#post10143183

😂

How's that on topic?

Originally posted by queeq
😂

How's that on topic?

I just moved it to the Mormon thread. 😕

Ah.... clever. More threads off topic.

Originally posted by ushomefree
All Christian denominations are in complete agreement regarding the fundamentals of Christianity, i.e., the Trinity, deity and resurrection of Jesus.

And they are all in agreement that if someone asks you about the Christians before third century AD, he's a lunatic.

Pardon?

an easy no.............just like the norse king saga, are they true, many passages of it yes but even when written in the 1200 they romanticised each event so you have to take it out of context and just dribble over it

Originally posted by ushomefree
Old Testament

(1) Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered 1947-56, Qumran, Israel). Provided our oldest copies of almost all books of the Old Testament and confirmed reliability of the transmission process.

(2) Taylor Prism (discovered 1830, Nineveh, Iraq). Corroborates the compaigns of Sennacherib found in 2 Kg 18:13-19:37; 2 Ch 32:1-12; Is 36:1-37:38.

(3) House of David Inscriptions (discovered 1993-94, Tel Dan, Israel). Earliest mention outside the Bible of King David, who some scholars habe held to be a fictional character.

(4) Cylinder of Nabonidus (discovered 1854, Ur, Iraq). Corroborates Belshazzar as last king of Babylon as recorded in Daniel 5:1-30; 7:1; 8:1.

(5) Sargon Inscriptions (discovered 1843, Khorsabad, Iraq). Confirms the existence of Sargon, King of Assyria, Isaiah 20:1, as well as his conquering of Samaria (2 Kings 17:23-24).

(6) Tiglath-Pileser III Inscriptions (discovered 1845-49, Nimrud, Iraq). Corroborates 2 Kings 15:29).

(7) Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (discovered 1846, Nimrud, Iraq). Depicts Jehu, son of Omri, oldest known picture of an ancient Israelite.

(8) Moabite Stone (discovered 1868, Palestine). Corroborates 2 King 3.

(9) Ketef Hinnom Amulets (discovered 1779, Jerusalem). Contains the Hebrew text of Numbers 6:24-26 and Deuteronomy 9:7. This is the oldest instance to date of of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, 7th-6th century BC.

(10) Seal of Baruch (discovered early-mid 1970's, Jerusalem). Contains the phrase "belonging to Beruch son of Neriah," Jeremiah's scribe, 6th century BC.

(11) Epic of Gilgamesh (discovered 1853, Nineveh, Iraq). First extra-biblical find that appears to reference the great flood of Genesis 7-8.

(12) Weld-Blundell Prism (discovered 1922, Babylon, Iraq). Contains a list of Sumerian Kings that ruled before and after the great flood; the kings that pre-dated the flood are attributed enormous life spans reminiscent of, though greater than, the lifespans of pre-flood inhabitants of the Bible.

(13) Siloam Inscription (discovered 1880, Jerusalem). One of the few extinct Hebrew writings from the 8th century BC or earlier.

(14) Gedaliah Seal (discovered 1935, Lanchish, Israel). Corroborates 2 Kings 25:22

[size=6]New Testament

(1) The Pilate Stone Inscription (discovered 1961, Caesarea Maritima). Confirmed the existence and office of Pilate.

(2) The Delphi, or Gallio, Inscription (discovered 1905). Fixed the date of Gallio's proconsulship at AD 51-52, providing a way of daiting Acts 18:12-17, and as a result, much of Paul's ministry.

(3) Caiaphas Ossuary (discovered 1990, near Jerusalem). Confirmed the existence of Caiaphas.

(4) Sergius Paulus Inscription (discovered 1877, Paphos, Cyprus). Confirms the existence of Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus encountered by Paul and Barnabus in Acts 13:7.

(5) Pool of Siloam (discovered 2004, Jerusalem). Site of Jesus' miracle recorded in John 9:1-11.

(6) Skeleton of Yohanan (discovered 1968, Jerusalem). Only known remains of crucifixion victim; corroborates the Bible's description of crucifixion.

(7) Rylands Papyrus P52 (discovered 1920). Oldest universally accepted manuscript of the New Testament, a small fragment of John's Gospel dated by papyrologists to AD 125.

(8) Bodmer Papyrus II (discovered 1952, Pabau, Egypt). Contains most of John's Gospel and dates from AD 150-200.

(9) Magdalene Papyrus (discovered 1901, Luxor, Egypt). Contains fragments of Matthew and has been dated as being earlier than 70 AD, though there is debate concerning the date.

(10) Chester Beatty Papyri (discovered 1931-35, Cairo, Egypt). Three papyri dating from AD 200 that contain most of the New Testament.

(11) Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Vatican Library's earliest inventory [1481]). Dated AD 325-50 and contains nearly complete Bible.

(12) Codex Sinaiticus (discovered 1859, Mt Sinai, Egypt). Codex contains nearly complete New Testament and over half of the Old Testament (the books at the beginning of the Bible appear to have been lost to damage), dated AD 350.

(13) 7Q5 (discovered 1955, Qumran, Israel). Possible fragment of Mark that can be dated no later than AD 68 which would mamke the oldest extant New Testament fragment confirmed.

(14) Galilee Boat (discovered 1986, near Tiberias, Israel). The boat, 30' x 8', held approximately 15 passengers and would be like the boats Jesus' disciples used in crossing the Sea of Galilee. Carbon 14 dating places the boat between 120 BC and AD 40.[/size]

The evidence validating all of these examples is no more or less substantial that that used to validate the Tomb of Jesus. Should we also consider that as plausible?

or the fact that they found remains in the so called archeological tomb of jesus

Originally posted by Devil King
The evidence validating all of these examples is no more or less substantial that that used to validate the Tomb of Jesus. Should we also consider that as plausible?

That's a bit harsh. These things do show a pattern which points to a certain reliability of the events described in the Bible.