Posted on 12/29/2005 6:54:10 AM PST by emiller
Finally, in the 1400's, the Turks took the city. They gathered up all the people and forced them to convert to Islam. About 800 men refused to renounce Christ and were beheaded in the city square. This enraged the surrounding cities who raised up an army and threw the Turks out. A church was built in the city square and the bones of these brave 800 were made part of the church itself.
Obelisk, new finds unleash debate in Ethiopia
By Emily Wax
The Washington Post
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002707622_obelisk28.html?syndication=rss
Go to the Old Testament, my friend, and read how often the ark was seen once it was in the sanctum sanctorum. Once a year, and then only by the high priest.
I'd say there's not much time like the present for Israel.
ROTFLMAO!!
How would that:
a) Not still be a war
-and-
b) Remove the Ark from being a reason for the war?
it would seem to me more likely to be a slaughter rather than a war. there wouldn't really be any fighting. and it sounded more like the war would be over the land the ark rests in, not over the ark itself.
altho, many countries and groups would probably happily goto war to get it for themselves. though i would bet any army except one led by israeli rabbis/ priests would meet the same fate the deacon threatens.
"We didn't make the trip (pilgrimage) all the way to that ancient church in France just to see Mary Madelene's toe. We just saw an interesting village (I forget the name) on top of a pointed hill that looked fascinating (when we travel we just wander around without a set schedule) so we stopped to investigate. Upon entering the church we saw a sign that said the toe was in the catacombs under the church. Under those circumstances we could not resist, and I'll bet neither could you. LOL"
If every place that claimed to have a piece of her actually did, she'd have had to have had 278 toes and 385 fingers. ;)
"I don't want to see the Temple back though I know prophetically it will happen. The Bible doesn't say that such a temple is a "good" thing but rather a place in which the "evil one" in human form throws down the gauntlet and commitx unspeakable blasphemies againt the anointed one of heaven! A temple in which animal sacrifices are once again in motion denies the "final" sacrifice of Jesus for all of our sins; these would serve to declare the his death on the cross was non-effectual for the remission of our transgressions."
Oh sheesh.
Keep in mind that the Jewish view is that the Temple might have been destroyed because of Jews following the blasphemy of Christianity. After all, Judaism was never big on the idea of human sacrifice.
I vaguely recall a plausible claim for the location of the Ark being buried somewhere under or very near a receding shore of the Dead Sea.
I have read (don't remember where) that the Ark is buried in or very near the Dead Sea...
He's talking about the toe of Mary Magdalene, not Mary the mother of Christ.
Actually, it is, once obliquely, and once directly. It's almost certain that the Ark was in Israel as late as the reign of Hezekiah. In 2 Ki. 19:15 and Isa. 37:16, we see the king praying, "O LORD God of Israel, who dwells between the cherubim . . ." Such a title is always used of God in reference to the Ark of the Covenant, per Exo. 25:22, 1 Sa. 4:4, 2 Sa. 6:2, 1 Ki. 8:6-7, and 1 Ch. 13:6.
Further, in 2 Ch. 35:3, we see Josiah saying to the Levites, "Put the holy Ark in the house which Solomon the son of David, king of Israel, built. It shall not be a burden on your shoulders. And serve the LORD your God and His people." Therefore, Shishak could not have captured or destroyed it, since its location was known to the Levites centuries later, though they had evidentially removed it from the Temple at some point before Josiah's reign. Since Josiah knew that they had it, it seems unlikely that it had been missing for centuries, but had been removed relatively recently.
Therefore, the most likely explanation for the Ark's absence is that it was removed during the reign of Manesseh, Josiah's predecessor, and it was probably at this time that it was taken to Elephantine Island, where as you said it remained for several centuries in what was apparently a scale copy of the Temple in Jerusalem (we even have papyri asking the priests in Jerusalem how to properly conduct sacrifices--which only makes sense if those on Elephantine had the Ark with them). When Josiah took the throne and led Israel in repentence, he asked the Levites to bring it back. The Bible doesn't say that they did so.
Shortly after that, we see Pharaoh Neco coming up to go to war with the Assyrians at God's order (2 Ch. 35:20)! But Josiah continued to go after Neco in disguise until he was slain in combat. Why would he do this against someone who was siding with him against Assyria at the command of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? While the Bible does not come out and say so, to me it seems likely that he was attempting to capture Neco to ransom him for the return of the Ark.
As for why the Bible doesn't just come out and say that the Ethiopians have the Ark, I suspect that was to safeguard the Ark.
Bump.
Wow, that would be so neat.
Wow!
What a Treasure trove of Info!
Thanks!
Since the Ark of the Covenant was before the incarnation of Christ, it would be about the holiest relic to both Jews and Christians...seeing as how it hosted the presence of the same holy God....
Of course for Christians the communion chalice or a piece of the cross would rival it...however the Ark of the Covenant is NOT strictly a Jewish relic.
Actually, not, assuming objective truth.
If Jesus is the true Messiah, of both Jews and Gentiles, as Christianity from the New Testament on has always claimed, then those who trust in Jesus alone would be God's "chosen people" today... and Christianity would be the rightful heir to Old Testament Judaism... As weird as it sounds, modern Judaism, from this New Testament perspective, would be the 'heretical sect' of the ancient Judaism of the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant, since it has rejected the Messiah.
Yes there can be a place for the Jewish people in the future, but only through the Messiah, Jesus. This is standard traditional cross-denominational Christian theology.
Christians have always acknowleged the legitimacy of the religion of Old Testament Judaism, modern Judiasm though, because of its rejection of Jesus as Messiah, essentially recognizes no religious value at all to Christianity or its relics.
It would be well to remember modern Christianity, like ancient Judaism did, relies on BLOOD SACRIFICE for salvation, whearas modern Judaism (since they have no temple) does not ...hence Christianity in that one essential has more in common with ancient Judaism than modern Judiasm.
Curiously, the Ethopian Christians have as part of their worship ritual copies of the Ark which they parade about during their services.
On the History Channel a few years ago they did an interesting piece on the Ark and how it wound up in Axum. Rather compelling too.
If you read the Old Testament, you might change your mind. The Ark is God's radio,a thing of great power, used by him to speak to the Israelites. Those not pure cannot approach it or they will be destroyed as were the Phillistines(?) who stole the Ark and paid so dearly they placed it on a cart drawn by white oxen to find its way back to the Israelites.
A lot of assumptions there. Just for sake of argument, let's say the Ark is unconvered in Antarctica, and looking at it doesn't kill you.
Where should it be displayed of the following three choices:
a) The Vatican
b) National Museum of Israel (or whatever it's called)
c) The Smithsonian Museum
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.