Posted on 05/19/2014 6:18:33 AM PDT by marshmallow
It sounds as if they’re caught up in “rules which make us harsh judges”.
Jews are still bitter for selling Jesus down the river.
They might like to build temples over tombs , but the story is that this was a Jewish mans home that was built over a tomb, and a special tomb at that of a noted king — david. . Highly unlikely.
Joseph of aramathia was apparently a rich guy and observant Jew. Odds he’d put his house on a tomb are zero.
Here’s what I’ve determined:
The place was a synagogue which has been reverenced since the 4th century the site of Pentecost and the Last Supper. In the 13th century, Crusaders were surprised to find a tomb at the site. THE TOMB WAS NOT DIRECTLY BELOW THE “UPPER ROOM” (”Cenacle”); it was underneath the enlarged site used to build a larger church. So, this dispels doubts about a Pharisee building him home on a tomb site. For whatever reason, the Crusaders believed the tomb to be that of King David, and constructed a sarcophagus for it. In doing so, however, they made impossible for modern researchers to validate their presumption.
The lack of obvious identifiers is consistent with ancient historians: Josephus relates that Herod tried to loot the tomb, but found the tomb already looted; it’s not even certain that there are any remains in the tomb.
Whatever agenda the Crusaders may have had, the local Jewish population also came to believe that it was the tomb of David (although the larger Jewish community largely rejects the notion). Part of the confusion stems from the bible itself, which seems to purport in one place that David WAS buried on Mount Zion (the City of David) [1 kings 2:10], but also that he was buried with his ancestors [”slept with his fathers”], leading some to believe the passage refers to Bethlehem. But I’m not sure “slept with his fathers” MEANS he was buried at the site they were buried at.
Forgot this tidbit:
Of course, the New Testament ALSO refers to BETHLEHEM, rather than MOUNT ZION, as the city of David. But this plainly is a separate identification than the City of David referred to as David’s capital.
Perhaps someone should explain to those Jews whose hackles have been raised that the Mass Pope Francis will be celebrating focuses on the Son of David.
There weren't walls standing after 132 AD, period. The Jews had another revolt and the Romans very deliberately took apart everything so that there wasn't a single wall left standing in and around that part of the city.
Everything was razed to ground level and the stones buildings were built from were even removed from the area. The wailing wall is actually a retaining wall for the base the Temple was built on.
Many faiths say “I have tolerance, I have understanding” ...except when Christians try to practice their faith.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Yeah, it’s terrible for Jews to believe in Judaism in Israel and to reject false religions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What is terrible is for Jews to try to outlaw the free worship and practice of religions other than Judaism in Jerusalem (which, of course, are currently permitted there). That includes Christianity, which was founded by that Jew Jesus Christ, who correctly predicted the devastating destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Yah'shua was/is/and will always be a Jew; a Jewish King
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
who will rule the world for a thousand years from Jerusalem.
Is the question whether there is any tomb at all, or merely who the tomb was for? I presumed that there must be SOME tomb if there’s even a question of whether it might be King David’s tomb.
Not sure really. Mostly what I find online is focused on the question of King David rather than the tomb itself, if such a thing is even there. At http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/Davids_Tomb.html there is a mention of a Benjamin of Tudela who, in 1173, tells of the miraculous finding of the tomb during renovations to a church there. This would seem to suggest that something like a tomb, at least, was uncovered at that time, though it may be impossible to actually physically confirm this today. Did these people have the knowledge to be able to identify such a Jewish tomb, or did they perhaps just find a hole and give into wishful thinking? Or were there perhaps bones or an ossuary of some kind?
Benjamin is also mentioned at http://www.jpost.com/Video-Articles/Video/CITYsights-A-tale-of-two-tombs which goes further and explicitly says that this man's writings were the "first evidence that the site was viewed as David’s burial place." It would appear, then, that at the minimum there is no ancient witness that this location is the tomb of David at all, which certainly makes this whole episode a little dubious. At least to me.
On the other hand, whatever evidence WAS there, must have been fairly convincing, since it convinced the local Jews of the day, despite the antagonism with the Crusaders and the theological significance of the Last Supper altar being so close to King David.
Thanks for posting this, dangus. Very interesting. “Why can’t we all just get along?” When we visited Jerusalem in 1999, the law was that Christians could only come for two months. They were afraid that missionaries would move in. Same God, I’m just saying.
“What is terrible is for Jews to try to outlaw the free worship and practice of religions other than Judaism in Jerusalem”
Huh? You can be any religion you want, or no religion, in Israel. My country is the only country in the ME that permits that.
This concerns a property that is owned by (what translates as) the Jewish Antiquity Organization (not exact translation), a quasi-governmental organization under the authority of the Orthodox Rabbinate, put in charge of Jewish sites, such as this, the Tomb of David.
Permitting religious ceremonies of another religion is a very difficult issue.
Be like muslims doing whatever muslims do in the Vatican.
First of all, Catholics consider Judaism "a central component of Christian salvation", and refer to Abraham as "the Father of our faith" in every Mass. Catholics also seek to obey the "Ten Commandments" as delivered by Moses from God, and they hold David in very high esteem, and a portion of one of the Psalms (many attributed to David) are read in most Catholic Masses, and various other different Psalms are read several times a day by all Catholic priests, deacons, and consecrated religious men and women (monks, brothers, sisters, nuns), as well as many lay Catholics, several times every single day, as they observe "The Liturgy of the Hours".
Jesus (who is referred to many times in the New Testament as the "Son of David") and His first Apostles were all Jews, and the first Christians were all Jews who had a background in Judaism. (And Jesus also quoted a Psalm attributred to David from His Cross.)
I urge you to do the following searches on Google (without the quotes):
"is david's tomb the real one"
"prophetic references to Jesus in the Old Testament"
"books on prophetic references to Jesus in the Old Testament"
I also highly recommend you read some of these books and articles:
I think it does not matter whether it is king David's tomb or not, mere decency would keep the Pope from insulting the Jews in their own country.
Wasn't buried during Christ's lifetime. See Peter's sermon on Pentecost, just 50 days following the Resurrection.
“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." Acts 2:29
There you go; this was not the location of the Last Supper.
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.