0
I know that one church in the Anglican (church of England) branch of Christianity is the Episcopal church.
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the most tongues a cat has been born with?
The cat can only have own toung to help them to clean their self and to feid tbeir on sels
When did the Greek settlers first come to Australia?
The first Greeks in Australia were convicts. The first Greeks actually documented to arrive in Australia were a group of 7 men from Hydra who were convicted of being pirates: they arrived in Australia in 1828. When they had finished tbeir sentence, five returend to Greece and the other two stayed in Australia. Of these, only one had children - 9 in all, leading to fifty grandchildren. However, the first Greek free settler came in 1835. She was Aikaterini Plessos, who was the wife of an army officer, Major Crummer. She also had many children and grandchildren, though she did not keep the Greek traditions alive in her family. The next recorded influx of Greek immigrants came with the goldrushes, which began in 1851.
What marsupials don't have pouches?
Very few marsupials do not have pouches. In Australia, these include the numbat and the red-tailed phascogale. In North America, some species of opossum (not related to the possum) do not have pouches.
When did Judah create Judaism?
The Bible records that Judaism was not created by Judah, although it certainly was maintained in that kingdom during the period prior to the exile, to an extent much closer to the ideal than the apostate northern kingdom of Israel.According to the Biblical record, Judaism had its origins at the time of Moses when God firstly revealed the divine name to Moses, then gave the Law at Sinai. Judaism, although having a historical development, does not trace its origins to Judah but to God Himself. The Deuteronomic history is a term first used in the 19th century by the founders of the Documentary Hypothesis and those who followed them. People such as Graf, Wellhausen, Kuenen, and others developed an elaborate Literary Theory based on subjective and anti-biblical presuppositions. They took no notice whatsoever of discoveries in the field of archaeology in developing their theory. It has been correctly stated by some in scholarly circles that had they done so their theory would have been markedly different or that they would not have developed it at all. The fact that no notice whatever was taken of archaeology is evidenced by a large number of discoveries in this field which explicitly contradict the theory. Some of these discoveries were beginning to be made around the time when Wellhausen first developed his theory. No changes were made to the essential fabric of the theory despite the solid refutation of it by facts.In connection with the above the Old Testament scholar R.K. Harrison pointed out: "Wellhausen took almost no note whatever of the progress in the field of oriental scholarship, and once having arrived at his conclusions, he never troubled to revise his opinion in the light of subsequent research in the general field." Harrison, Ronald Keith B.D., M.Th., Ph.D. in Introduction to the Old Testament, p 509.The above post explains some of the details of the theory.What needs to be clearly understood is that some scholars from all sides of the discussion (those in favor and those against) on the Documentary Hypothesis acknowledge that archaeological and other literary studies of the documents themselves thoroughly refute the original pillars on which the theorists built the structure of their theory.It must also be understood that outside of the Biblical text itself not one single shred of evidence exists for any of the alleged authors of this history. Not one single shred of textual evidence exists outside of the Bible either. Use of differing literary styles which is done even today has been well understood as a simple explanation for differences of style within the text.Some scholars claim to have also pointed out numerous methodological weaknesses in the whole theory such as circular reasoning where the result was pre-determined. Alleged redactors (editors) are proposed to explain the numerous places where the documents do not fit the theory. These scholars have noted that this is tantamount to admitting at every point where a redactor is deemed to be necessary that the theory breaks down at that point. Over time this was found to be necessary on numerous occasions, thus demonstrating amply the holes in the theory.Some scholars have also pointed out numerous other details in the text itself which point to a unified author, as well as details which do not fit well at all into the time of Josiah.Archaeological discoveries continue to be made which support the view which the Bible itself presents. None have been found to be unequivocally supportive of the view of skeptical scholarship. The comparatively recent discovery of the Creation Tablet from Ebla demonstrates the antiquity of the knowledge of an almighty creator, and has a number of parallels with the Genesis account. The Ebla discoveries are part of a number of other similar discoveries which some believe thoroughly refute the idea that the religion of Israel evolved from primitive polytheism to henotheism and then to monotheism. They also refute the fallacy of writing not being in use in the time of Moses, thus supposedly making it impossible for him to be the author. Detailed interpretations of scripture, including subjective interpretation based on a flawed presuppositions, were made in line with the circular reasoning inherent in the theory. The evidence was found to fit the preconstructed criteria, and all contrary evidence was either re-interpreted or discarded. The polytheism which certainly existed in the history of Israel was interpreted in line with the theory. The flaws in the theory in relation to the development of the religion of Israel are reflected in the way in which the Biblical evidence is selectively interpreted, with the great mass of contrary evidence ignored - evidence which clearly demonstrates the centrality of monotheism.Thus there is no need to develop explanations with no basis in fact to account for a theoretical historical evolution of religion which never happened. It is clear that Judah did not create Judaism, both from the Bible itself and from the external evidence as well. The Bible In Context The one and only religion of Israel was distinctly monotheistic in nature. Numerous passages, in context, support this claim. The imposing of meanings foreign to the text, due to out of context quotation, produces meanings not intended by the original authors and are out of keeping with the consistent message of the scriptures as a whole.The scriptures attest that the religion of Israel was wholly monotheistic from its inception through Moses as well as back into the patriarchal period.1. The God of Israel was the only God of the patriarchs:Exodus 3:15 (King James Version) 15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. On fifteen other occasions the God of Israel is referred to as the "God of Abraham", twelve of them in Genesis. On thirteen other occasions He is referred to as the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."2. The God of Israel was the only God revealed to Moses:Since Moses is the central founding figure of the religion of Israel (Abraham being the genetic father of the Jewish nation) it is important to know what was revealed to him about God. There is not one single reference which demonstrates that Moses was polytheistic in either practice or in his teaching. The God who revealed himself to Moses in Exodus 3, was the one God that Moses worshiped and the one and only God of Israel. This God Moses worshiped and served all his days. 3. Departure from the one true God (Monotheism) was warned against prior to the entry into Canaan:This occurs primarily in Canaan and demonstrates that in the wandering in the desert, the Israelites worshiped the one true God. The glaring exception of course being the making of the idol at Sinai. This exception does not demonstrate that they were polytheistic, since this was a departure and an aberration, a grievous departure from the one God who led them out of Egypt. Deuteronomy 18:9 (King James Version) 9When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations... 12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee... 14For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.If polytheism and not the monotheistic worship of one God was indeed the religion of Israel, then these commands would be utterly meaningless - they would just be continuing as they left off if they were already polytheists. 4. Oppression by foreign powers during the time of the Judges was explicitly linked to departure from the one true God of Israel.5. Every King of Israel and Judah under both the united and divided kingdoms were judged under monotheistic criteria.6. The Assyrian and Babylonian captivities were specifically linked to departure from the one true God of Israel.7. Future blessings and curses were always conditional upon obedience to the one God of Israel:8. Worship of deities other than the God of Israel was never seen as anything other than sin:9. In order for Israel to depart from the one true God they must first have served Him:10. Israel was a nation separated unto Yahweh alone, never unto any other:
