'Ark of the Covenant' about to be unveiled?

Yes, that would be a miracle.

Somehow The Ark of The Covenant has a mercy seat upon it. It may someday be the seat on which Christ sits.:

Exd 25:16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.

Exd 25:17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat [of] pure gold: two cubits and a half [shall be] the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.

Exd 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims [of] gold, [of] beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

Exd 25:19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: [even] of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

Exd 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

Exd 25:21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

Exd 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

A concept that Hollywood borrowed from The Bible. Much more than just a scary scene from a movie but horrifying reality that shall come for many.:

Zec 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

You said — That would be a valid sign. I really hope and doubt it actually happens. If the first person that touches it has nothing happen to them, will it be construed as him being a good person, or it not being the ark? Who would volunteer to be the 2nd person?

—

Well, yeah, if it would only happen that way. But, I’m doubtful... LOL...

I think all that is going to happen is an announcement for a new museum and what the admission price is going to be... :-)

You said — Zec 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

—

Ummm..., right description — but wrong context and location... LOL...

That wasn’t about the Ark of the Covenant, but about a war that is fought and what happens in that war. That sounds like a battlefield nuke - a neutron bomb, to me, and not the Ark of the Covenant... :-)

[a] specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/410967/neutron-bomb

And also...

After the war ended, Cohen joined the Rand Corp. where he was paid to continue thinking about nuclear weapons. He was obsessed with the idea of a neutron bomb, one that would make use of the lethal particles he had observed so studiously at Los Alamos.

The earliest bombs had used nuclear fission, splitting heavy atoms to release energy. Later bombs used nuclear fusion, which fused hydrogen atoms to release energy. Both designs produced tremendous blasts that could level whole cities, and left them uninhabitable for long periods because of lingering radiation.

Cohen’s neutron bomb would use nuclear fusion, but in a different way. The detonation of a neutron bomb would still produce an explosion, but one much smaller than a standard nuclear weapon’s. The main effect of a neutron bomb would be the release of high-energy neutrons that would take lives far beyond the blast area. The result: fewer buildings, cars, tanks, roads, highways and other structures destroyed.

And unlike standard nuclear bombs that leave long-term contamination of the soil and infrastructure, the neutron radiation quickly dissipates after the explosion.

For Cohen, the neutron bomb is the ultimate sane weapon. It kills humans, or as he puts it “the bad guys,” but doesn’t produce tremendous collateral damage on civilian populations and the infrastructure a civilian population needs to survive.

This meant, in Cohen’s mind, that a conventional war could escalate without immediately leading to an all-out nuclear holocaust. If regular nuclear weapons were used across Europe, the radioactive fallout could turn the continent into a wasteland for decades. That wouldn’t be the case if neutron bombs were used.

Between 1958 and 1961 the neutron bomb idea was tested successfully, but the politicians in Washington nixed development and deployment of the weapon. Cohen persisted. As the Vietnam War began and festered in the 1960s, Cohen became an advocate of using neutron bombs there. To Cohen, his weapon was “a perfect fit” for dealing with the Viet Cong hidden in the jungles and rice paddies.

Again, the politicians had other ideas. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ruled that no nuclear weapons of any type would be used in the war. The use of the small neutron bombs would have brought the war to a quick end, Cohen still argues, and saved the loss of more than 50,000 American lives.

In 1969, Cohen was fired from the Rand Corp. for continuing to advocate the use of tactical neutron bombs to end the conflict. “I lost all my battles,” Cohen says today.

In 1979, he was in Paris helping the French build their own arsenal of neutron bombs when presidential candidate Ronald Reagan came through on a European tour. Cohen met with Reagan to brief him on the neutron bomb. Reagan grasped the idea of neutron weaponry immediately, and made a pledge to Cohen, and later a public pledge, that he would reverse Carter administration policy by building and deploying a large number of neutron bombs.

As president, Reagan fulfilled that pledge and approximately a thousand weapons were constructed. But criticism from European allies kept the weapons from being deployed across Europe.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism as we knew it, the Bush administration moved to dismantle all of our tactical nuclear weapons, including the Reagan stockpile of neutron bombs. In Cohen’s mind, America was brought back to Square One. Without tactical weapons like the neutron bomb, America would be left with two choices if an enemy was winning a conventional war: surrender, or unleash the holocaust of strategic nuclear weapons.

Other nation’s haven’t been afflicted by the U.S. blindness regarding neutron bombs. According to Cohen:

Evidence exists that China has neutron bombs stockpiled, and that the United States gave the Chinese the technology to build them.

Russia has a large quantity of such weapons, as well as the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Israel has hundreds of neutron weapons. The neutron bombs would allow Israel to stop advancing Arab armies and tank columns - even one on Israeli soil - without permanently contaminating the land.

[ http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm ]

Note that last paragraph...

This is one instance where Israel could use “battlefield nukes” and not destroy their own land or contaminate their own land and utterly destroy the enemy at the same time. It’s very, very effective and they could use it in close proximity to Jerusalem and not damage Jerusalem.

I agree.

Some wires got crossed on this story. I went to the Adnkronos website and found that the original story was posted June 18...and there's a follow-up story dated Jun 19, which (I presume) is the information from the Patriarch's press conference. Here's a link to the stories published on Adnkronos under "Arca" = "Ark"

So anyway, the press conference seems to have been last Friday. Here's the latest article on it. Can't translate all now, but here's a key passage:

"All that which is found in the Ark--explained the Patriarch, responding to the curiosity of journalists--is described perfectly in the Bible. The state of conservation is good because it is not made from the hand of man, but it is something that God has blessed." "There are many writings and evidences of the presence of the Ark in Ethiopia. There is no reason why someone [would] dare to affirm to have something that he doesn't have," explained the Patriarch. "I am not here to give proofs that the Ark is in Ethiopia, but I am here to say what I saw, what I know and I can attest to. I didn't say that the Ark would be revealed to the world. It is a mystery, an object of veneration."

Roma, 19 giu. - (Adnkronos) - "L'Etiopia è il trono dell'Arca dell'Alleanza. L'Arca dell'Alleanza è stata in Etiopia per 3.000 anni e adesso è ancora lì e con la volontà di Dio continuerà ad essere lì. E' per via del miracolo che è arrivata in Etiopia".
Il Patriarca della Chiesa ortodossa d'Etiopia Abuna Pauolos conferma quanto aveva anticipato due giorni fa dall'ADNKRONOS. Lo fa in una conferenza stampa tenutasi all'Hotel Aldrovandi a Roma, cui ha partecipato anche il principe Makonnen Haile Selassie, nipote dell'imperatore. "L'ho vista con senso di umiltà, non con orgoglio, come quando si va in chiesa. E' la prima volta -ha proseguito il Patriarca Pauolos- che dico questo in una conferenza stampa. Ripeto l'Arca dell'Alleanza è in Etiopia e nessuno di noi sa per quanto tempo ancora. Solo Dio lo sa".
"Tutto quello che si trova nell'Arca -ha spiegato il Patriarca rispondendo alla curiosità dei cronisti- è descritto perfettamente nella Bibbia. Lo stato di conservazione è buono perché non è fatta da mano d'uomo, ma e' qualcosa che Dio ha benedetto". "Ci sono molti scritti e prove evidenti sulla presenza dell'Arca in Etiopia. Non c'è ragione perché qualcuno pretenda di affermare di avere qualcosa che non ha -ha precisato il Patriarca-. Non sono qui per dare delle prove che l'Arca sia in Etiopia, ma sono qui per dire quello che ho visto, quello che so e che posso testimoniare. Non ho detto che l'Arca sarà mostrata al mondo. E' un mistero, un oggetto di culto".
Il Patriarca Pauolos ha anche parlato della costruzione di un museo ad Axum, una struttura che dovrà accogliere e conservare i tesori costruiti per secoli e secoli ad Axum. Nel museo, finanziato dalla fondazione del principe e che dovrebbe essere costruito entro due anni, potrebbe essere collocata anche l'Arca dell'Alleanza, ma per questo ha spiegato Abuna Pauolos "c'e' bisogno di una decisione che spetta al Santo Sinodo, l'istanza suprema della Chiesa ortodossa etiope". Il patriarca Pauolos, presidente del G8 delle Religioni, ha preso parte dal 16 al 18 giugno al G8 delle religioni che si e' tenuto tra Roma e L'Aquila. Poi ieri il Patriarca e' stato invitato dalla comunita' di Sant'Egidio dove ha partecipato a una giornata di studio sulla storia religiosa d'Etiopia, e sempre ieri ha incotrato in Vaticano il Pontefice Benedetto XVI.
"Nell'incontro in Vaticano Benedetto XVI e il Patriarca hanno discusso di molte cose e sua Santità ha rivolto al Patriarca l'invito a tornare a ottobre", ha precisato il principe Makonne Haile Selassie.

"I am not here to give proofs that the Ark is in Ethiopia, but I am here to say what I saw, what I know and I can attest to.

Golly gee, glad that' cleared up. :0/

Nice try, but no. The Ark of the Covenant (more specifically, the Mercy Seat of the Ark) represents God's throne, as a comparison between the structure of the Tabernacle/Temple and the throne room shown in Ezekiel 1 and Revelation 4-5 makes clear.

Shalom.

for this:

"All that which is found in the Ark--explained the Patriarch, responding to the curiosity of journalists--is described perfectly in the Bible. The state of conservation is good because it is not made from the hand of man, but it is something that God has blessed." "There are many writings and evidences of the presence of the Ark in Ethiopia. There is no reason why someone [would] dare to affirm to have something that he doesn't have," explained the Patriarch. "I am not here to give proofs that the Ark is in Ethiopia, but I am here to say what I saw, what I know and I can attest to. I didn't say that the Ark would be revealed to the world. It is a mystery, an object of veneration."

Thanks Claud!

“”The Ark of the Covenant (more specifically, the Mercy Seat of the Ark) represents God's throne, as a comparison between the structure of the Tabernacle/Temple and the throne room shown in Ezekiel 1 and Revelation 4-5 makes clear.””

The Blessed Mother is written all over the Old Testament and Fulfilled in the New Testament,Dear Friend.
So, debating this with personal interpretations of the Bible that have no historical writings to back them up makes no sense

You should think about understanding how typology works and it would be clear to you how the scriptures make sense through the Church that gave you New testament Canon.All of this is “of course” backed up by writings of the Early Christians

Here is little on this topic written By Cardinal Ratzinger(Pope Benedict XVI)

The Church invented nothing new of her own when she began to extol Mary; she did not plummet from the worship of the one God to the praise of man. The Church does what she must; she carries out the task assigned her from the beginning. At the time Luke was writing this text, the second generation of Christianity had already arrived, and the “family” of the Jews had been joined by that of the Gentiles, who had been incorporated into the Church of Jesus Christ. The expression “all generations, all families” was beginning to be filled with historical reality. The Evangelist would certainly not have transmitted Mary's prophecy if it had seemed to him an indifferent or obsolete item. He wished in his Gospel to record “with care” what “the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Lk 1:2-3) had handed on from the beginning, in order to give the faith of Christianity, which was then striding onto the stage of world history, a reliable guide for its future course.

Mary's prophecy numbered among those elements he had “carefully” ascertained and considered important enough to transmit to posterity. This fact assumes that Mary's words were guaranteed by reality: the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel give evidence of a sphere of tradition in which the remembrance of Mary was cultivated and the Mother of the Lord was loved and praised. They presuppose that the still somewhat naive exclamation of the unnamed woman, “blessed is the womb that bore you” (Lk 11:27), had not entirely ceased to resound but, as Jesus was more deeply understood, had likewise attained a purer form that more adequately expressed its content. They presuppose that Elizabeth's greeting, “blessed are you among women” (Lk 1:42), which Luke characterizes as words spoken in the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:4 1), had not been a once-only episode.

The continued existence of such praise at least in one strand of early Christian tradition is the basis of Luke's infancy narrative. The recording of these words in the Gospel raises this veneration of Mary from historical fact to a commission laid upon the Church of all places and all times.

The Church neglects one of the duties enjoined upon her when she does not praise Mary. She deviates from the word of the Bible when her Marian devotion falls silent. When this happens, in fact, the Church no longer even glorifies God as she ought. For though we do know God by means of his creation–”Ever since the creation of the world [God's] invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom 1:20)–we also know him, and know him more intimately, through the history he has shared with man. just as the history of a man's life and the relationships he has formed reveal, what kind of person he is, God shows himself in a history, in men through whom his own character can be seen.

This is so true that he can be “named” through them and identified in them: the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. Through his relation with men, through the faces of men, God has made himself accessible and has shown his face. We cannot try to bypass these human faces in order to get to God alone, in his “pure form”, as it were. This would lead us to a God of our own invention in. place of the real God; it would be an arrogant purism that regards its own ideas as more important than God's deeds. The above cited verse of the Magnificat shows us that Mary is one of the human beings who in an altogether special way belong to the name of God, so much so, in fact, that we cannot praise him rightly if we leave her out of account.

In doing so we forget something about him that must not be forgotten. What, exactly? Our first attempt at an answer could be his maternal side, which reveals itself more purely and more directly in the Son's Mother than anywhere else. But this is, of course, much too general. In order to praise Mary correctly and thus to glorify God correctly, we must listen to all that Scripture and tradition say concerning the Mother of the Lord and ponder it in our hearts. Thanks to the praise of “all generations” since the beginning, the abundant wealth of Mariology has become almost too vast to survey. In this brief meditation, I would like to help the reader reflect anew on just a few of the key words Saint Luke has placed in our hands in his inexhaustibly rich infancy narrative.

Mary, Daughter Zion–Mother of Believers

Let us begin with the angel's greeting to Mary. For Luke, this is the primordial cell of Mariology that God himself wished to present to us through his messenger, the Archangel Gabriel.

Translated literally, the greeting reads thus: “Rejoice, full of grace. The Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). “Rejoice”: At first sight, this word appears to be no more than the formulaic greeting current in the Greek-speaking world, and tradition has consistently translated it as “hail”. But looked at against the background of the Old Testament, this formula of greeting takes on a more profound significance. Consider, in fact, that the same word used by Luke appears four times in the Septuagint, where in each case it is an announcement of messianic joy (Zeph 3:14; Joel 2:21; Zech 9:9; Lam 4:21).

This greeting marks the beginning of the Gospel in the strict sense; its first word is “joy”, the new joy that comes from God and breaks through the world's ancient and interminable sadness. Mary is not merely greeted in some vague or indifferent way; that God greets her and, in her, greets expectant Israel and all of humanity is an invitation to rejoice from the innermost depth of our being. The reason for our sadness is the futility of our love, the overwhelming power of finitude, death, suffering, and falsehood. We are sad because we are left alone in a contradictory world where enigmatic signals of divine goodness pierce through the cracks yet are thrown in doubt by a power of darkness that is either God's responsibility or manifests his impotence.

“Rejoice”–what reason does Mary have to rejoice in such a world? The answer is: “The Lord is with you.” In order to grasp the sense of this announcement, we must return once more to the Old Testament texts upon which it is based, in particular to Zephaniah. These texts invariably contain a double promise to the personification of Israel, daughter Zion: God will come to save, and he will come to dwell in her. The angel's dialogue with Mary reprises this promise and in so doing makes it concrete in two ways. What in the prophecy is said to daughter Zion is now directed to Mary: She is identified with daughter Zion, she is daughter Zion in person.

In a parallel manner, Jesus, whom Mary is permitted to bear, is identified with Yahweh, the living God. When Jesus comes, it is God himself who comes to dwell in her. He is the Savior–this is the meaning of the name Jesus, which thus becomes clear from the heart of the promise. René Laurentin has shown through painstaking textual analyses how Luke has used subtle word play to deepen the theme of God's indwelling. Even early traditions portray God as dwelling “in the womb” of Israel–in the Ark of the Covenant. This dwelling “in the womb” of Israel now becomes quite literally real in the Virgin of Nazareth. Mary herself thus becomes the true Ark of the Covenant in Israel, so that the symbol of the Ark gathers an incredibly realistic force: God in the flesh of a human being, which flesh now becomes his dwelling place in the midst of creation.

The angel's greeting–the center of Mariology not invented by the human mind–has led us to the theological foundation of this Mariology. Mary is identified with daughter Zion, with the bridal people of God. Everything said about the ecclesia in the Bible is true of her, and vice versa: the Church learns concretely what she is and is meant to be by looking at Mary. Mary is her mirror, the pure measure of her being, because Mary is wholly within the measure of Christ and of God, is through and through his habitation. And what other reason could the ecclesia have for existing than to become a dwelling for God in the world? God does not deal with abstractions. He is a person, and the Church is a person. The more that each one of us becomes a person, person in the sense of a fit habitation for God, daughter Zion, the more we become one, the more we are the Church, and the more the Church is herself.

The typological identification of Mary and Zion leads us, then, into the depths. This manner of connecting the Old and New Testaments is much more than an interesting historical construction by means of which the Evangelist links promise and fulfillment and reinterprets the Old Testament in the light of what has happened in Christ. Mary is Zion in person, which means that her life wholly embodies what is meant by “Zion”. She does not construct a self-enclosed individuality whose principal concern is the originality of its own ego. She does not wish to be just this one human being who defends and protects her own ego. She does not regard life as a stock of goods of which everyone wants to get as much as possible for himself.

Her life is such that she is transparent to God, “habitable” for him. Her life is such that she is a place for God. Her life sinks her into the common measure of sacred history, so that what appears in her is, not the narrow and constricted ego of an isolated individual, but the whole, true Israel. This “typological identification” is a spiritual reality; it is life lived out of the spirit of Sacred Scripture; it is rootedness in the faith of the Fathers and at the same time expansion into the height and breadth of the coming promises. We understand why the Bible time and again compares the just man to the tree whose roots drink from the living waters of eternity and whose crown catches and synthesizes the light of heaven.

Let us return once more to the angel's greeting. Mary is called “full of grace”. The Greek word for grace (charis) derives from the same root as the words joy and rejoice (chara, chairein). Thus, we see once more in a different form the same context to which we were led by our earlier comparison with the Old Testament. Joy comes from grace. One who is in the state of grace can rejoice with deep-going, constant joy. By the same token, grace is joy.

What is grace? This question thrusts itself upon our text. Our religious mentality has reified this concept much too much; it regards grace as a supernatural something we carry about in our soul. And since we perceive very little of it, or nothing at all, it has gradually become irrelevant to us, an empty word belonging to Christian jargon, which seems to have lost any relationship to the lived reality of our everyday life. In reality, grace is a relational term: it does not predicate something about an I, but something about a connection between I and Thou, between God and man. “Full of grace” could therefore also be translated as: “You are full of the Holy Spirit; your life is intimately connected with God.” Peter Lombard, the author of what was the universal theological manual for approximately three centuries during the Middle Ages, propounded the thesis that grace and love are identical but that love “is the Holy Spirit”.

Grace in the proper and deepest sense of the word is not some thing that comes from God; it is God himself. Redemption means that God, acting as God truly does, gives us nothing less than himself The gift of God is God–he who as the Holy Spirit is communion with us. “Full of grace” therefore means, once again, that Mary is a wholly open human being, one who has opened herself entirely, one who has placed herself in God's hands boldly, limitlessly, and without fear for her own fate. It means that she lives wholly by and in relation to God. She is a listener and a prayer, whose mind and soul are alive to the manifold ways in which the living God quietly calls to her. She is one who prays and stretches forth wholly to meet God; she is therefore a lover, who has the breadth and magnanimity of true love, but who has also its unerring powers of discernment and its readiness to suffer.

Luke has flooded this fact with the light of yet another round of motifs. In his subtle way he constructs a parallel between Abraham, the father of believers, and Mary, the mother of believers. To be in a state of grace means: to be a believer. Faith includes steadfastness, confidence, and devotion, but also obscurity. When man's relation to God, the soul's open availability for him, is characterized as “faith”, this word expresses the fact that the infinite distance between Creator and creature is not blurred in the relation of the human I to the divine Thou. It means that the model of “partnership”, which has become so dear to us, breaks down when it comes to God, because it cannot sufficiently express the majesty of God and the hiddenness of his working. It is precisely the man who has been opened up entirely into God who comes to accept God's otherness and the hiddenness of his will, which can pierce our will like a sword.

The parallel between Mary and Abraham begins in the joy of the promised son but continues apace until the dark hour when she must ascend Mount Moriah, that is, until the Crucifixion of Christ. Yet it does not end there; it also extends to the miracle of Isaac's rescue-the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Abraham, father of faith-this title describes the unique position of the patriarch in the piety of Israel and in the faith of the Church. But is it not wonderful that-without any revocation of the special status of Abraham–a “mother of believers” now stands at the beginning of the new people and that our faith again and again receives from her pure and high image its measure and its path?

Note to self... less habanero on the burrito next time.

If this turned out ot be true, wouldn’t this make the muzzie mullahs heads explode!?
They'd claim it was stolen from them.
And then the Chinese would claim they invented it. :o)

Keepers of the Lost Ark?[Ethiopia][Ark of the Covenant]
Smithsonian Magazine | December 2007 | Paul Raffaele
Posted on 11/27/2007 2:27:12 PM EST by BGHater
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1931280/posts

That wasn’t about the Ark of the Covenant, but about a war that is fought and what happens in that war. That sounds like a battlefield nuke - a neutron bomb, to me, and not the Ark of the Covenant... :-)

I agree. I was pointing out that Hollywood did not originate the awful scene but it is out of the Bible and in a different context the horrible thing is yet to happen to multitudes, perhaps even some who read this post.

Was there any update on this?

Was there any update on this?

Will post a separate thread.

Yeah, it turned out to be some bad translation work, a big misunderstanding. Only two people (at most) at a time can view the supposed Ark — the current guardian, and the guy being trained to take over when the current guardian dies.

So back to where things were before? Just the rumors and reports of something in Ethiopia.