Posted on 05/01/2018 9:23:02 AM PDT by rdl6989
A lost city dating to the rule of King David from the Old Testament has been uncovered in Jerusalem. King David is an ancestor of Jesus, according to biblical sources, which say he ruled around BC 1,000. Experts say that recently-found ruins date to the 10th century BC. This ties in with the timeframe for when the bible says King David existed, making the link between the two 'plausible', researchers claim. The finding is likely to fuel the debate surrounding whether Biblical figures such as King David actually existed, however.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
What’s next on your agenda? Offering a reward to find where the Bible says the exact words “we should worship on Sunday?” That is an old, OLD one.
Exactly, and in that way God was able to keep his promise to both Abraham and David. God seems to be very detail oriented, since the answer is always in the details.
Oh, I have studied that . Actually there is no “worship” day. There is only the sabath— rest. All that is just legalism anyway and was abolished on the Cross, as you probably know. I have proven that “Church” is not in the Bible. The King James inserted “church” after 1600 years of the Greek word “Ekklesia” which literally means only— “The called out”. That would be “BELIEVERS”. There is this hoax that it also meant “gathering” or “assembly” which is dispatched by the Greek word “Sanhedrin” which was actually the real Greek word for “gathering” and “assembly”. So in actuality, there is no “day” or place of worship. These “churches” are just “franchises” They all have some product differentiation based on some legalism but they are not a product of the Bible at all. Each one takes in money and send royalties to the franchisor. It is just a business. Have a great day and take care.
Great cut and paste. I enjoyed it. Has nothing to do with the issue at hand but appears “intellectual”.
Not cut and paste. I remembered that from years ago LEARNING the Bible.
I suppose you believe God is a chicken because the Psalmist says..
Psalm 91
4. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust:
his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
It is not that I “regard” Mary as not in the linage of David. It is the fact that Mary is absolutely not shown anywhere in the Bible ( or anywhere else) as in the linage of David. That is made up to try desperately to explain the error and conflict in the two linages of “JOSEPH”— one in Matthew 1 and the other irreconcilable history written in Luke 3:23. But even if ,in fact, they were the same written linage— it would be irrelevant to the blood line of Jesus since His Father is GOD. People that do nor accept God as the Father of Jesus go to Hades (oblivion)and have no eternal life anywhere.
Actually, I take very little in the Bible literally, so much is obviously allegorical. I do take literally the birth ,life, death and resurrection of the Son of God. That is all you need for salvation.
How can YOU separate the allegorical from the literal? There are so-called preachers who claim Christ did not actually come back to life but only in an allegorical sense. Same for the miracles.
And how would YOU separate the Sadducee beliefs from the Pharisee beliefs on resurrection of the dead and angels?
Most allegories are ludicrous like Jonah living in the fish at the bottom of the Mediterranean for 3 days . Adam and eve in the “garden of eden”, Joshua stopping the orbit of the Sun, the flood and the ark. There are so many. They are man’s primitive attempts to deal with creation and the complexity of God . But Jesus had actual and repeated eye witnesses to his Resurrection . In short it boils down to evidence vs rank conjecture and contrivance. That is just my view. But it is how I tell the difference in answer to your fair question.
If they were around there should be some european dna in the descendents of the local tribes.
Okay.
So, notwithstanding the prophecies dictating that the Messiah was to come from the House of David, here’s a seemingly unrelated question: how do you know that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew?
Well I’ve found all about you I need to know. Another “Pick and chose” person who knows more than “everyone” about things that were already known for the last 2000 years, and is delusional about the rest.
See yah in the funnypapers.
I have a suggestion but it implies intellect in this case which is futile. Instead of personal attack resulting from absolute truthful argument, engage in theological debate. Via con dios.
I absolutely don’t know that Matthew wrote Matthew. Most of the “Gospels” were were written in pseudonym 50 to 80 years after the resurrection . The only one that I accept as actual eye witness is John and even that is very shaky. I view the others as hearsay campfire legends but when you think about it all history is written hearsay — I have read war accounts in the civil war by women!! but that is ok as history if they are studied. Paul was never an eye witness to Christ. I personally believe that he was inspired by Jesus . I have grave questions about the rest — except John, Thanks for asking.
Okay.
If that is the case, what are your grounds for believing in their inspiration? It is known as “the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew”; if it is not truly so, why would you find it credible or inspirational?
I told you what I think. Go figure. I don’t answer to you.
I never said you answered to me, nor would I ever claim to. I just find the incongruity in your posts to be interesting, is all.
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.