RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES IN ISRAEL PERTAIN TO KING DAVID, JESUS

Aug 17, 05 | 4:55 pm

Working a short distance from each other near Jerusalem's Old City, archaeologists have made two major discoveries in recent months, one pertaining to King David and the other to Jesus.

Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazor has uncovered what may be the 3,000-year-old foundation walls of the palace of the biblical King David in the area known as the City of David.

The foundations for the monumental building are large boulders. Its walls are more than six feet thick and extend at least 98 feet. Also found at the site were a governmental seal of an official named Jehucal or Jucal, who is mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah, and numerous shards of Iron Age II pottery dating from the 10th to 9th centuries, corresponding to the time of David and Solomon.

The find has sparked a lively debate among archaeologists about whether the structure is actually the palace of the fabled Jewish king. If true, it "could turn out to be the archaeological find of the century," according to the Jerusalem Post. But in any case, all agree that it is a rare and important major public building from a period that has been under-represented in the archaeological record.
"This is a very significant discovery, given that Jerusalem as the capital of the united kingdom [Jewish] is very much unknown," said Gabriel Barkay, an archaeologist from Israel's Bar-Ilan University. "This is one of the first greetings we have from the Jerusalem of David and Solomon, a period which has played a kind of hide-and-seek with archaeologists for the last century."

This is a very old post, but yet it is still alive. This information in this post is errant. The original city of David (the fortress Zion) was totally destroyed in the second century BC by Simon the Hasmonian. Mr Mazor needs to read Josephus. Some buildings were moved to the NEW city of David located to the west of the old city of David. The fact is that David never lived in the new city of David. It's sad today that even science has become politicised. You don't know who to trust anymore - global warming, temple location to name two current "scientific" falsehoods.

The Bible states plainly that jesus was crucified on a tree not a sawn or hewn post like is commonly believed. traditionally the tree was burned along with the body of the occursed. The Roman governor interfered with this process.

All three were crucified on the one tree - not three "latin Posts" like is commonly believed.

[Sarcasm is not a part of the Holy Bible]

Tom Wrote:
 Brother Larry,
"The comment given appears to be fairly simple and considerate. Sarcasm is not a part of the Holy Bible, and that's all that was said. The portion of Scripture you quoted involves Paul admonishing the Corinthians and telling them how to restore peace and order in their services. Paul addressed numerous issues. I do hope that you enjoy Christians Unite. We do have a large number of sweet Christians here."

Dear Tom,
I am wondering what version of the Bible you are reading? Mine is full of people with charater deficiencies all the way through from one cover to the other. That is what makes it so believable - it doesen't reek of embellishment. St. Paul was a sarcastc hothead, who was often at odds with his fellow disciples.

Is murder a part of the Holy Bible? How about Adultry? Have you heard of a Bible character named David? Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all on this.

One of the major problems with people reading the Bible is they try to understand these ancient documents with a 21st century western mind - It doesent work in a lot of cases. Often these opinions are no where near reality in the face of the historical facts. There is no greater example of this than the modern dispensational view of eschatology - it is absurd the unrestrained freedom and liberties that people take with the book of Revelation.

Larry

Dear BS,
I appreciate your insight and perceptive comments. It makes the hour and a half that I spent writing my first post on this site really seem worthwhile. I really feel welcome here.

With all of the insight given you by the holy spirit and the kindness and maturity expressed on this site I am sure your board will be a complete success. I know your kind attitude and considerate welcome makes me want to be a regular here on CU. Keep up the good fight for the truth of literalism - it's the only way.

Larry

Dear Bawilli,
Unfortunately, the attitude of much of the Church today toward women revolves around two difficult to interpret passages written by St. Paul. I am addressing the one mentioned in your post.

St. Paul was a very sarcastic person and it shows up in his writings. The best interpretation that I have found revolves around this sarcasm - allow me to explain.

1 Cor. 14:34-37 (KJV)  (Quotation)
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

The passage then continues…

[36] What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? [37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Note that I have added quotation marks around the sarcastic verses to indicate that St. Paul is quoting the words of someone in the Church probably a "Judiazer", someone - who in judging from the text - considered himself a prophet in that local body.  Obviously, all St. Paul wanted to do was correct this individual - not dwell on it to a point of driving him (them) out of the Church.

The following is a quote from Dr. John Gustavson.
Quote:
Professor Sir William Ramsey, the most widely accepted authority on St. Paul in the early 1900's says "we should be ready to suspect Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul's known views." Considering Paul's views on the ministries of Priscilla, Phoebe and others referred to earlier, it is clear that Paul believed in equality of women in ministry. Moreover, ICor 14:34,35, if taken totally literally, cannot refer to the Old Testament Scriptures when speaking of the Law for there is not one trace from Genesis to Malachi of any such prohibition of women to literally keep silent in the church nor is there a single word in the whole "law of Moses" dealing with the subject. Therefore the words, "it is not permitted" and "as also saith the Law" must refer to some rule outside of Scripture. There was no other, but the Oral Law of the Jews appealed to by the Judaizers in the church in their efforts at that time to bring Christianity back within the confines of Judaism.

The Jewish Oral Law did teach the silencing of women. The Talmud also taught that it was "a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men". However, the Oral Law of the Jews is not Scripture. Again, the reference to the "law" is, of itself, sufficient to show that the Apostle who labored so earnestly to free the Christian Church from the very shadow of Judaism was not expressing his own conviction in the language attributed to him.  Paul never appealed to the "law" for the guidance of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, declared that believers were dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Ro 7:4) that they might serve in newness of spirit and not the oldness of the letter (v.6).)"
Close quote:

Because the quote was given in a Sarcastic tone, it simply means that the exact opposite was true because he was mimicking or mocking a Judiaser and not making a statement.

Some translations like the KJV and the Amplified Bible insert the word "What!" at the beginning of vs. 36. What is the "What!" there for? This is an expression of outrage at the previous verses or quotations (33-35). Verses 36 - 38 should be read with an element of anger. Verse 37 continues where he is upbrading someone who thought themselves to be a Prophet in the Church. Obviously the person he quoted in vs. 33-35. As Ramsey suggests, 1CO was probably written in response to a letter sent to him by the Corinthians.

You may want to read one of my sources on this - Dr. John Gustavson's papers - part one and two on Women in the Church. The address is as follows...
 
               www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women1.htm

               www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women2.htm    

Codger