Posted on 12/29/2005 6:54:10 AM PST by emiller
If Indiana Jones had done his homework, he would have found the Ark of the Covenant by raiding a church in the barren mountains of northern Ethiopia.
Many Ethiopians believe that the Ark, containing the stone tablets inscribed with God's Ten Commandments, rests in the church of St Mary of Zion, at the town of Axum, and some western scholars have
(Excerpt) Read more at news.telegraph.co.uk ...
I think they should find some oxen who have never been yoked, separate them from their newborn calves, put the ark on a wagon and see if the oxen take the ark back to Jerusalem. Would be interesting, wouldn't it?
No man unpurified could touch it without dying. Whether or not that would still happen is open to question, since the temple veil was rent upon Jesus' death and of the prophecy in Joel that in the latter days "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh". Christians sufficiently prayed up might could get away with it , but given the history of it and the OT injunctions its better left having it handled the way the Law says it should be handled. It is the symbolic presence of God in the midst of men and his Glory did rest between the two cherubim....you wouldn't just handle it like an old couch!
Of course using that reasoning (which I agree with), the ark of the covenant would have no place in the life of the church. It is just a neat historical relic.
The admonition would still apply up to and until the Lord God directed so.
"The Torah has many purposes beyond that, but that's a whole separate argument. For my part, I make no distinction between the "moral" Torah (those parts which tell us how to "Love thy neighbor"--like not stealing, not committing adultery, forgiving other's debts, actively helping our enemies, etc.) and the "ceremonial" Torah (those parts which tell us how to love God, like keeping the Feastdays which lay out His entire prophetic plan, etc.). "
There was the Torah and then there was the Talmud which took root during the 400 silent years as a "protective fence or gait" around the Torah to keep it from being polluted by the paganism surrounding Israel...it became more like a veil that hid its light(the temple veil was rent in twain and so was the talmudic veil around then known scriptures on the day Christ died!).
Christ complained of the Talmudic injunctions that were strangling the light of the Torah..."you have lost the keys of knowledge and those listening to you are thrice more damned than your-selves" he said to the enraged clerics.
Talmud (TAHL-mud): The most significant collection of the Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah.
It is in Jeremiah's grotto. Thet is where Ron Wyatt found it.
The ark really existed and I believe the remains have been found. Ron Wyatt discoveries.
We are in fact in essential agreement, sir. I actually wrote a piece on how tradition should be handled and incorporated into our walks on my blog: The Proper Use of Tradition Within the Scripture. I myself actually voluntarily keep many Jewish traditions that can be traced back to the first century, but I agree that there's an issue when one believer judges anyone on the basis of their personal fences, whether those fences be related to drinking, clothing styles, or whatever.
Indeed, I think that the issue the Apostles were dealing with under the heading, "the Law" was not simply the written Torah, but whether Gentiles should be compelled to become fully Jewish via circumcision and be held to all of the "Oral Torah" as well.
I don't think that's the veil, however--the veil, I think, symbolized the separation between God and Man due to sin. When Yeshua took our sin on Himself and let His body be torn, it tore the veil.
Christ complained of the Talmudic injunctions that were strangling the light of the Torah...
Exactly. And that's why while upholding every command of the Torah and telling us to keep them (Mat. 5:17-19), He could still say, "My yoke is easy, and My burden is light" (11:30). The "yoke" was often used by rabbis to speak of the Torah, both written and oral (cf. Acts 15:10)--He was not repudiating any of the Torah, neither its moral or its ceremonial commands, but restoring them to their original simplicity. He was saying, "My Torah--the same Torah given at Mt. Sinai before people started trying to add to it--is easy and the burden of it light."
Obviously, the Torah has to be properly divided. Many of its commands cannot be directly applied today. There is no Temple to sacrifice in (and when it is first rebuilt, it'll have the wrong High Priest anyway). We do not have debt-slavery. It is impossible for me to travel thrice a year to Jerusalem to properly keep the Feasts, though I would if I could. Without touching the NT, I can demonstrate from the Torah that kosher is entirely optional for Gentiles.
But where we can keep a command literally, I think it good to do so. Where the command cannot be kept literally, but can be kept either in part or spiritually, I think it is good to do so.
And I think, based on Scripture, that the Temple will be rebuilt, and that sacrifices will resume even before the King returns and Israel bows to Him. And I truly believe that God will use this to remind many of the need for blood atonement, and that they will discover the Messiah through that.
Just my two cents. God bless.
ping
What it says specifically is that just as David will never lack a man on his throne, that being the immortal Yeshua HaMashiach, "nor shall the priests the Levites lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle grain offerings, and to do sacrifice forever . . ." and just as the covenant with David will never be broken, nor shall "My covenant with the Levites the priests, My ministers." See Num. 25:10-13 to see which Levitical covenant God is talking about. The plural term used--"priests," not "priest"--mean that more than just the Messiah is in view here.
In the Millennium and beyond, the Levites will continue to be priests, with Yeshua as the High Priest. This is the only way to reconcile the above promises with Heb. 8-10 and Ezk. 40-48.
Levites offered temporary covering for sins via animal sacrifice...
Actually, according to Hebrews 9:13ff and 10:3, the animal sacrifice only "sanctifies to the (ceremonial) purifying of the flesh" and serve as "remembrance again of sins every year." Indeed, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (v. 4). They could only cover (Heb. kapparah, to atone) the sins until the time to completely take them away by punishing them in the person of the Messiah had come.
In the Millennium, they will still stand the ceremonial purpose of purifying the flesh (which the author of Hebrews uses the present tense to indicate they still did in his or her own day, post-Cross) and reminding people of the price of sin (which seems necessary to me in light of a yet fallen man--those not taken in the Second Coming/Rapture--living in near-Edenic conditions). They will serve the latter purpose even before them, in the End Times.
it is He that purifies the Levites in Malachi3:3 so that they offer unto the Lord an "offering in Righteousness" and by extension to all men!
Exactly. Nevertheless, Sha'ul still calls the End Time Temple "the Temple of God," so we must be very careful about calling it evil or assuming that God rejects it. Rather, He permits it, even with an imperfect service, as a part of seeing to the redemption of all Israel.
I don't think we're really in any essential disagreement here. Rather, we seem to be looking at the same thing from two slightly different angles.
God bless.
I'm interested in the details of this (or some pointers to the details, either as a reply or via a private message. Thanks.
wow - can you imagine the public bickering that would ensue? the finding country vs. israel and the various christian churches?
then imagine it is found by someone like china.
it is hard for me to get around the idea that if i sent an advanced communication/small energy-weapon platform with appropriate external decoration down to a bronze-age people and used it as a vehicle to help and protect them, it could be described in contemporary writings pretty much as the ark is.
"I'd LOVE to know if Noah's Ark really exists. That has always intrigued me."
Their would be nothing left of it by now. I think it did, but history and science seem to tell of a regional great flood ten thousand years ago vs. a global flood.
Somebody down there has the whole head. She got around.
Really briefly, since I'm in a rush: In Gen. 9:3, God gives Noah "every moving thing" as food, not just the clean animals (and Noah did know the difference, per 7:2). And in Deu. 14:21, an Israelite is not permitted to eat something that dies on its own, but could sell the meat to a Gentile living in the land of Israel, again demonstrating that God did not hold Gentile believers to the kosher standards that He held circumcized Israelites to.
Why would Solomon need a "love child?" He had enough wives/concubines, and subsequent children, to form a small village on his own.
Was Hancock saying that the Queen of Sheba & Solomon...? Solomon DID have problems keeping his robe shut.
None of the above. The Vatican has no claim on the Ark of the Covenant...it belongs to religious Jews. Same goes for the museums. End of story.
Guess they're just gonna have to build a Temple.
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.