God's seventh-day Sabbath: Its not Sunday.

rstrats


colbe,

re: "The Old Covenant regulations are no longer binding in the New Covenant."

Was the commandment that says "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain..." one of the Old Covenant's regulations?




re: "God's moral laws are..."

I'm not aware of any scripture that uses the word "moral" with regard to any of the supreme being's laws. What do you have in mind?

rstrats, hi,

"Regulations" were the regulations of men in the Old Covenant not coming from God. Useless laws that do not lead you to holiness. In the New Covenant, whatever the Church bound here is bound in Heaven says Our Lord speaking to Peter who (in the previous verse) Jesus had just named His chosen leader of Christianity on earth (Matt 16:18-19). God's way, Our Lord returned to Heaven, where is God's earthly spiritual leader of Protestantism? Important, the kind of worship was changed by God and the name and day by God's appointed authority here, Peter and the Apostles, the Church.

Jesus instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at the Last Supper. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the
greatest form of worship on earth, the most pleasing to God. The Holy Mass saves the world.

Hard to understand and defiant not to want to honor Our Lord, on the Lord's Day. The reason for the day moved to Sunday and name change. Without Jesus' suffering death, His Sacrifice, where would we be?

All 10 Commandments are binding and moral. God's grace and His plan is made greater in the New Covenant. Proof, in one Commandment by keeping the Lord's Day.

Obvious why, no response again from anyone, why do you accept the first day of the week is Easter SUNDAY, the day Our Lord arose and ignore the two Gospel verses containing the exact same term...the first day of the week that states when the first Christians assembled to bread bread (earliest term for the Eucharist)? The Latin Vulgate, the first Bible says "when we were ASSEMBLED", the origin of the word Church. Darn King's translators adding, taking away again, changed thousands of words from the original.

www.drbo.org...


KJV

Acts 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

First, you have to define the word "ancient".

I already did: there is only one ancient Israel, which existed until it was ended by the Assyrian Empire. Anything after that is a province called Yehud, then later, called Judea.

There is a ton of archaeological evidence, not to mention the evidence in Holy Writ, that ancient Israel existed.

There is no evidence that the "Holy Writ" existed before the Hellenistic period.

Read that again. First Temple archaeological finds at the Temple Mount. To suggest that ancient Israel is a fiction is pure nonsense.

"First Temple Period" just means things belonging to a pre-Babylonian time period.
It doesn't mean they found the first temple or anything that can be connected to it.

I already did: there is only one ancient Israel, which existed until it was ended by the Assyrian Empire. Anything after that is a province called Yehud, then later, called Judea.

That is your own personal definition of "ancient", which is fine. We can work with that. Let's go back to King Solomon, then. The First Temple - Solomon's Temple - It is stated by some that no conclusive archeological evidence for or against the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found.

But if we take this at it's word, why would this be so? Because of the religious zealots involved, and the politically charged situation in Jerusalem, only limited archaeological surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted.

That doesn't mean Solomon's Temple never existed! It just means that the area is restricted from archaeological excavation! Big difference.

But let's look at other evidence that points in a different direction. In 2010, King Solomon's Wall was claimed to have been found. According to the National Geographic, in their article "King Solomon's Wall Found", by reporter Mati Milstein:

"The tenth-century B.C. wall is 230 feet (70 meters) long and about 6 meters (20 feet) tall. It stands along what was then the edge of Jerusalem—between the Temple Mount, still Jerusalem's paramount landmark, and the ancient City of David, today a modern-day Arab neighborhood called Silwan."

Read that again. The King Solomon's Wall now sits in an Arab neighborhood. No wonder excavation for evidence has been so challenging! Other evidence was reportedly found:

"Three-foot-tall (one-meter-tall) earthenware storage vessels were found near the gatehouse, one of them with a Hebrew inscription indicating the container belonged to a high-ranking government official. Figurines typical of tenth-century B.C. Jerusalem—including four-legged animals and large-breasted women likely symbolizing fertility—were also uncovered, as were jar handles bearing impressions reading "to the king" and various Hebrew names, she said. The artifacts may hint at the area's street life in biblical times. Here ancient Jerusalemites would have gathered around the wall's city gate to trade, settle disputes via street-side judges, engage in ritual practices, and stock up on water and supplies for treks out of the city, Mazar said."

In mid-2012, reporter Michele Rabin of the Huffington Post reported in her article, "Khirbet Qeiyafa Excavations find Evidence of Solomon's Temple, Archaelogists Say":

"Archaeologists have unearthed a trove of artifacts dating back to the time of the biblical King David that they say closely correspond to the description of Solomon's Temple found in the Book of Kings. Hebrew University archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel said the find "is extraordinary" first because it marks the first time that shrines from the time of the early Israelite kings were found. In addition, two small, well-preserved models discovered in the excavations closely resemble elements described in the Bible. The multiyear excavations took place at Khirbet Qeiyafa, a fortified city about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem, adjacent to the Valley of Ella where, the Bible says, the ancient people of Israel were encamped when David slew Goliath. Excavations yielded a large assortment of pottery, stone and metal tools as well as art and cult objects. Garfinkel said the people who lived at the site appeared to shun both graven images and pigs -- both prohibited by the Hebrew Bible."

So, yes, you can believe all of the anti-Jewish propaganda that states that "ancient Israel" never existed, but between archaeological evidence to the contrary, biblical evidence, and the testimony of historians such as Josephus, the argument against an ancient Israel is myopic and distorted at best, and extremely biased - if not hateful - at worst.

You certainly have to take into account that there are certain extremist politicos and religious factions that will do and say anything to deny the Jewish people their rightful claim to the Land of Israel. That's what you are dealing with here - Politics, religious zealotry against the Jewish people, and land disputes. You have to look very closely at the motives of such wild claims that suggest ancient Israel never existed, because there are a large number of vested interests who will do anything to deny Israel's rightful claims to the land.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

That is your own personal definition of "ancient", which is fine.

No.
It's my "own personal definition" of Israel.

That doesn't mean Solomon's Temple never existed! It just means that the area is restricted from archaeological excavation! Big difference.

It's not a "difference", it is an excuse.
How about a historical record from the time, by any other nation? There were empires about, who would have a written record of the "talents of gold" sent to Solomon as tribute.

In 2010, King Solomon's Wall was claimed to have been found.

They just called it that. It is not like they found a script on it saying "this is Solomon's wall".

So, yes, you can believe all of the anti-Jewish propaganda that states that "ancient Israel" never existed . . .

You are just being paranoid now.

No. It's my "own personal definition" of Israel.

Makes no difference how you define "ancient Israel". Dates don't change historical facts.

It's not a "difference", it is an excuse. How about a historical record from the time, by any other nation? There were empires about, who would have a written record of the "talents of gold" sent to Solomon as tribute.

So now you are arguing against National Geographic? Interesting.

For every non-academic propagandist you want to promote, I can cite real academic scholars that can attest to ancient Israel. How about a Harvard historian? Is that good enough for you?

Ben-Sasson, Hayim (1985). A History of the Jewish People. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-39731-6. Amazon's description:

A History of the Jewish People presents a total vision of Jewish experiences and achievements--religious, political, social, and economic--in both the land of Israel and the diaspora throughout the ages. It has been acclaimed as the most comprehensive and penetrating work yet to have appeared in its field. Six distinguished scholars at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, have set forth here for the first time the authentic story of the Jewish past that is relevant to the Jewish present. Special attention is paid to the significant historical sources that have come to light in the past decades, to the findings of archaeological research, and to source materials in Jewish studies such as Talmudic literature--sources that have too often been ignored by historians.

I've already given you Oded Borowski's incredible work, Daily Life in Biblical Times. These are true scholars, with solid academic credentials.

I don't know how you plan on convincing anyone that "ancient Israel" never existed by citing authors of questionable motivation.

They just called it that. It is not like they found a script on it saying "this is Solomon's wall".

I cited multiple and modern archaeological finds from well-known and reputable archaeologists that quite easily and clearly refute your baseless assertions. It's really no surprise that you have no refutation. It's hard to argue when you don't have any evidence to support your claims.

You are just being paranoid now.

No. Just calling a spade a spade. You can choose to believe as you choose, but please, don't think that anyone reading this thread will believe your claims. I'll let the readers of the thread decide for themselves.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Dates don't change historical facts.

You seem to be living in a delusional world where there is an indisputable "Eternal Israel".

My personal opinion is that this is your god and have a good time with that but I choose to live in the real world and to worship the real God rather than one manufactured by men for their own self-glorification.

You seem to be living in a delusional world where there is an indisputable "Eternal Israel". My personal opinion is that this is your god and have a good time with that but I choose to live in the real world and to worship the real God rather than one manufactured by men for their own self-glorification.

One of the very first prayers Orthodox Jews pray every morning is, "Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom, for all eternity."

Or, as the Roman Catholics pray, "Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost..As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."

G-d is eternal, and His Kingdom is eternal. While we have mortal lives here in our lifetime on this planet, G-d's Kingdom will never end. Ever.

This is pretty basic theology for both faiths, Judaism and Christianity, both of which are more closely related than some might think.

This is not a "manufactured" idea to glorify man - The eternal Kingdom is to glorify G-d, not man. And G-d's Kingdom doesn't have an end date.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

This is pretty basic theology for both faiths, Judaism and Christianity, both of which are more closely related than some might think.

I consider neither one of them as a standard of perfection that I would want to emulate.
They both glory in their inclusion in what they consider an exclusive group, the exact thing that Jesus came to disperse, to include all people.
There is a God, and there always has been for as long as there has been a universe, and as long as there has been people in the universe to call Him God. That I consider a fact, and with that, all along, God has been the King and the universe has been His kingdom.
What you are talking about is a couple of groups of people who set up their own private club and made up rules for membership, and then called their club the kingdom of God. Just saying so does not make it true. Hailing and glorifying your private club that you are a member of according to the club rules is idolatry, sorry about that.