Israel
National News reported on 6/6/2014 that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made controversial statements in a closed
meeting on Monday, saying 'I don't want one state from the (Mediterranean) Sea
to the Jordan (River)...we must separate from the Palestinians'."
It
is my belief that Israel is preparing to annihilate the Palestinians as
foretold in Obadiah.
Now, ask yourself what one geographical
reality would a military commander wish to face if he knew he would soon be
called upon to totally annihilate a civilian population, especially when such
population is in very close physical proximity to your own citizens?
Why, you
would want that targeted population to be physically separated from your own population, would
you not?
In fact, a military commander would
want to pull 100% of his own people out of the targeted areas just before he
began his annihilating action. From my experience in U.S. Military
Intelligence, I can tell you that an analyst would be looking for just this
kind of action to occur, thinking that, when minority citizens are pulled out
of the targeted cities and towns, this action would be a signal that
large-scale attack was imminent.
If Netanyahu and his Cabinet orders the Israeli Defense Force to be
finished with their preparations for physical separation between Arab and Jew you can be
fairly sure that the annihilating war of Obadiah 15-18 is about to commence.
Today, fences and walls separate Israel
from Palestinian throughout the Holy Land. The world is about to witness the
beginning of the judgments of the House of Esau (Palestinians), just as God
foretold in Obadiah 15-18. This annihilating war will spread quickly as Syria,
Jordan, and Egypt will immediately launch all-out military strikes against
Israel, trying to destroy her from within and from without. However, God will
not allow Israel to be defeated; He will allow her to suffer her worst losses
yet, but will not allow her to be destroyed. If Israel is defeated and
destroyed, the Holy Bible will be proven a fake and a liar, and you will be
free to figure out what other religion in which to believe. God's Name and
Reputation are literally on the line, so you can bet all you own that Israel
will emerge victorious, stronger, and will expand to 'possess her former possessions'
(Obadiah 17).
The Illuminati has included this
prophecy of Obadiah 15-21 within their plans to produce Antichrist, although
they have no clue they are fulfilling Biblical prophecy. They also have plans
to use this Arab-Israeli war as the spark for their coveted World War 3, which
will ultimately produce Antichrist.
Watch the 10 Kingdoms form, as fulfillment of Daniel 7:7-8 will provide the sequence for which to
watch to ascertain approximately when the World War III will begin that will
produce Antichrist on the world scene. Two days ago, Palestinian leaders of Hamas and Fatah came very close to announcing a
Palestinian State. Such an announcement would trigger the prophecy of
Isaiah 34.
"And He (God) will stretch over it (Edom) a
measuring line of confusion and the plummet stones of chaos over its nobles.
They shall call its nobles to proclaim the kingdom, but nothing shall be there
..." (Isaiah 34:11-12,
KJV
"They shall call its nobles to proclaim the
kingdom, but nothing shall be there".
When you hear this proclamation of a
Palestinian State, know that Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, know that
nothing will come of it, and know that the final annihilating war of the House
of Edom, the Palestinians, is close at hand.
The time is quickly approaching where
discerning Christians are going to start "looking up" as Jesus urged:
"And when these things
begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your
redemption draweth nigh." (Luke 21:28)
 |
| the leader of AQ the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri |
One of the principal narratives of the 2012 Obama re-election campaign was
al Qaeda (AQ) has been “decimated” and
put on a “on the path to defeat”. Well that false narrative has been decimated.
According to a study released 5 June 14 by the RAND Corporation, there has been
a 58% increase in the number of jihadist groups over the last four years.
Even more troubling, the number of jihadist fighters has doubled, and the number of worldwide attacks has tripled. The report further notes that terrorist groups operating in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan pose the greatest threat to the United States.
“Based on these threats, the United States cannot afford to withdraw or remain disengaged from key parts of North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia,” states Seth G. Jones, author of the study and associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at RAND.
“After more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it may be tempting for the U.S. to turn its attention elsewhere and scale back on counterterrorism efforts. But this research indicates that the struggle is far from over.”
The raw numbers are stark. The number of groups have increased from 31 to 49, the number of fighters to a high estimate of 100,000 and the number of attacks from 392 to approximately 1000.
Jones points out that America also faces significant threats in addition to Islamic jihadism, including the invasion of Ukraine by Russia that threatens our NATO alliance; China’s flexing of its economic, military and cyber muscles in East Asia; and the instability of North Korea. He also puts Iran and their dedicated pursuit of nuclear-weapons in this category.
Jones’s analysis pokes a giant hole in the leftist ideology that posits America’s forays into Iraq and Afghanistan caused an increase in jihadist activity. In fact it is quite the opposite. As America has retreated from the Middle East – completely from Iraq in December of 2011, combined with a highly-publicized schedule of winding down combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of this year — terrorism is surging.
According to Jones the epicenter of that surge is Syria. The ongoing civil war there has produced the largest increases in both the number of groups and the number of terrorists, and they now comprise more than half the number of groups worldwide who are AQ sympathizers. “It’s become a breeding ground for jihadist activity,” he explains. He also notes there were substantial gains in North Africa in general, and Libya in particular.
The study further reveals that terrorist leadership has become more decentralized. It is diffused among four tiers: (1) core AQ in Pakistan, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri; (2) formal affiliates that have sworn allegiance to core AQ, located in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and North Africa; (3) a panoply of Salafi-jihadist groups that have not sworn allegiance to AQ but are committed to establishing an extremist Islamic emirate; and (4) inspired individuals and networks.
The terror groups themselves are divided into three categories. “Category one,” and the top priority for U.S. counter-terror efforts according to the author, should be groups with both the “interest and ability” to perpetrate attacks in the United States. They include AQ in the Arabian Peninsula based in Yemen, AQ’s core elements along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, homegrown jihadists such as the Boston Marathon-bombing Tsarnaev brothers, and the growing number of radicalized Americans fighting the Assad regime in Syria.
“Second category” terror groups are those incapable of mounting a domestic terrorist attack, but who remain committed to attacking U.S. and other Western targets abroad. They emanate from countries such as Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria, and include al-Shabaab and Boko Haram.
“Third category” terrorist groups are those with little interest or capacity to target America or American interests overseas. Jones cites the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in China, and “numerous others with parochial interests across Africa, the Middle East and Asia.”
Different military strategies are offered for coping with each category. Groups in the first category should be subjected to “clandestine special operations, intelligence, diplomatic and other capabilities to target AQ groups and their financial, logistical and political support networks.”
The U.S. should also assist local governments with training, advice and assistance in attacking terror’s root causes, which he claims range from incompetent security forces to collapsing economies. (The latter root cause is a largely specious assumption, as this list of middle class and wealthy high-level terrorist indicates).
Jones posits that groups in the second category should engender U.S. support for local governments, but no direct action on our part. For the third category, he suggests an approach that relies on counter-terror operations by allies and local governments while keeping American air, naval and rapidly deployable ground forces assets in close proximity “offshore.”
Unfortunately for an Obama administration seemingly determined to squander painfully bought gains in the Middle East, Jones offers a most inconvenient assessment of reality.
“AQ was born along the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier in the late 1980s, and it will not disappear just because U.S. forces leave,” he insists, adding that our imminent departure from Afghanistan “will most likely be a boost for insurgent and terrorist groups dedicated to overthrowing the Kabul government, establishing an extreme Islamic emirate, and allowing AQ and other groups to establish a sanctuary.”
He further warns that just as in Iraq, the withdrawal of U.S. troops “does not make the terrorism problem go away,” but has rather allowed AQ and other groups “breathing space to expand their attacks and spread to neighboring countries like Syria.”
The most inconvenient reality of all? The current trends outlined in the study suggest that “the struggle against extremism is likely to be a generational one, much like the Cold War.”
In other words, no matter how desperately the American left, the isolationist factions on both sides of the political divide, and those Americans unduly influenced by the Democrats’ odious anti-war presidential campaign of 2004 want the war on terror to end, the terrorists themselves have other ideas.
To believe otherwise is a fool’s errand based on the same kind of fatuous, faculty-lounge thinking engaged in by an Obama administration that precipitates such follies as the easing of sanctions on Iran, the latest announcement by the State Department that they will work with a Palestinian “unity” government that includes terrorist-designated Hamas, and the release of five high-level terrorist thugs from Guantanamo Bay.
On the last page of the report, Jones cites a poem entitled “Mujahid’s Wish.” It was published in the Spring 2013 issue of AQ’s Inspire magazine, and as Jones rightly explains, reveals the mindset of those who consider the U.S. “a bitter enemy.” The last four lines are more than enough to understand what we are really up against:
Brother residing in the West, grab you (sic) chance and
Walk steadfastly towards your goal.
As for me here in Yemen, whenever I move around with
Explosives around my waist, I wish I am in America.
Even more troubling, the number of jihadist fighters has doubled, and the number of worldwide attacks has tripled. The report further notes that terrorist groups operating in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan pose the greatest threat to the United States.
“Based on these threats, the United States cannot afford to withdraw or remain disengaged from key parts of North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia,” states Seth G. Jones, author of the study and associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at RAND.
“After more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it may be tempting for the U.S. to turn its attention elsewhere and scale back on counterterrorism efforts. But this research indicates that the struggle is far from over.”
The raw numbers are stark. The number of groups have increased from 31 to 49, the number of fighters to a high estimate of 100,000 and the number of attacks from 392 to approximately 1000.
Jones points out that America also faces significant threats in addition to Islamic jihadism, including the invasion of Ukraine by Russia that threatens our NATO alliance; China’s flexing of its economic, military and cyber muscles in East Asia; and the instability of North Korea. He also puts Iran and their dedicated pursuit of nuclear-weapons in this category.
Jones’s analysis pokes a giant hole in the leftist ideology that posits America’s forays into Iraq and Afghanistan caused an increase in jihadist activity. In fact it is quite the opposite. As America has retreated from the Middle East – completely from Iraq in December of 2011, combined with a highly-publicized schedule of winding down combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of this year — terrorism is surging.
According to Jones the epicenter of that surge is Syria. The ongoing civil war there has produced the largest increases in both the number of groups and the number of terrorists, and they now comprise more than half the number of groups worldwide who are AQ sympathizers. “It’s become a breeding ground for jihadist activity,” he explains. He also notes there were substantial gains in North Africa in general, and Libya in particular.
The study further reveals that terrorist leadership has become more decentralized. It is diffused among four tiers: (1) core AQ in Pakistan, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri; (2) formal affiliates that have sworn allegiance to core AQ, located in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and North Africa; (3) a panoply of Salafi-jihadist groups that have not sworn allegiance to AQ but are committed to establishing an extremist Islamic emirate; and (4) inspired individuals and networks.
The terror groups themselves are divided into three categories. “Category one,” and the top priority for U.S. counter-terror efforts according to the author, should be groups with both the “interest and ability” to perpetrate attacks in the United States. They include AQ in the Arabian Peninsula based in Yemen, AQ’s core elements along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, homegrown jihadists such as the Boston Marathon-bombing Tsarnaev brothers, and the growing number of radicalized Americans fighting the Assad regime in Syria.
“Second category” terror groups are those incapable of mounting a domestic terrorist attack, but who remain committed to attacking U.S. and other Western targets abroad. They emanate from countries such as Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria, and include al-Shabaab and Boko Haram.
“Third category” terrorist groups are those with little interest or capacity to target America or American interests overseas. Jones cites the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in China, and “numerous others with parochial interests across Africa, the Middle East and Asia.”
Different military strategies are offered for coping with each category. Groups in the first category should be subjected to “clandestine special operations, intelligence, diplomatic and other capabilities to target AQ groups and their financial, logistical and political support networks.”
The U.S. should also assist local governments with training, advice and assistance in attacking terror’s root causes, which he claims range from incompetent security forces to collapsing economies. (The latter root cause is a largely specious assumption, as this list of middle class and wealthy high-level terrorist indicates).
Jones posits that groups in the second category should engender U.S. support for local governments, but no direct action on our part. For the third category, he suggests an approach that relies on counter-terror operations by allies and local governments while keeping American air, naval and rapidly deployable ground forces assets in close proximity “offshore.”
Unfortunately for an Obama administration seemingly determined to squander painfully bought gains in the Middle East, Jones offers a most inconvenient assessment of reality.
“AQ was born along the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier in the late 1980s, and it will not disappear just because U.S. forces leave,” he insists, adding that our imminent departure from Afghanistan “will most likely be a boost for insurgent and terrorist groups dedicated to overthrowing the Kabul government, establishing an extreme Islamic emirate, and allowing AQ and other groups to establish a sanctuary.”
He further warns that just as in Iraq, the withdrawal of U.S. troops “does not make the terrorism problem go away,” but has rather allowed AQ and other groups “breathing space to expand their attacks and spread to neighboring countries like Syria.”
The most inconvenient reality of all? The current trends outlined in the study suggest that “the struggle against extremism is likely to be a generational one, much like the Cold War.”
In other words, no matter how desperately the American left, the isolationist factions on both sides of the political divide, and those Americans unduly influenced by the Democrats’ odious anti-war presidential campaign of 2004 want the war on terror to end, the terrorists themselves have other ideas.
To believe otherwise is a fool’s errand based on the same kind of fatuous, faculty-lounge thinking engaged in by an Obama administration that precipitates such follies as the easing of sanctions on Iran, the latest announcement by the State Department that they will work with a Palestinian “unity” government that includes terrorist-designated Hamas, and the release of five high-level terrorist thugs from Guantanamo Bay.
On the last page of the report, Jones cites a poem entitled “Mujahid’s Wish.” It was published in the Spring 2013 issue of AQ’s Inspire magazine, and as Jones rightly explains, reveals the mindset of those who consider the U.S. “a bitter enemy.” The last four lines are more than enough to understand what we are really up against:
Brother residing in the West, grab you (sic) chance and
Walk steadfastly towards your goal.
As for me here in Yemen, whenever I move around with
Explosives around my waist, I wish I am in America.
Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara hosted
the fifth session of the Shmuel Ben-Artzi Tanach (Bible) Study Circle at their
official residence in Jerusalem this week.
The Tanach Study Circle is named after the Prime Minister's late father-in-law, who passed away last November, and was a Bible teacher and researcher.
The Tanach Study Circle, held in cooperation with the Menachem Begin Heritage Center, was reinstated two years ago, renewing a tradition started by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, and which was continued by its sixth prime minister, Menachem Begin. This evening's meeting focused on the Book of Ruth, which is read on the holiday Shavuot taking place this week.
"I have always thought and believed that the Bible is the foundation of our existence here," Prime Minister Netanyahu said. "Otherwise we would be somewhere else or nowhere at all. The influence of the written words has not lessened over the generations; on the contrary, their strength has only increased.
"Therefore, I think that we need – here in the prime minister's residence – to focus on the Bible every few months."
At the start of the first lesson of the renewed Tanach Study Circle, Netanyahu said that "Ben-Gurion and Begin believed that the Bible should be the heritage of the entire nation – secular and religious, young and old, men and women.
"The Bible is the foundation of our existence. It unites the Jewish people, as it has throughout the generations. It also serves not only as a foundation but also as a map and compass.
The Bible is always relevant vis-à-vis today's problems and challenges. It inspires, it is a source of life for our people and I think that it is important to expand Bible study and love of the Bible among all parts of the nation.
"This is also the goal of this circle. I am certain that thanks to the researchers, rabbis and learned men and women here, who know and love the Bible, we will enrich our common knowledge."
The Tanach Study Circle is named after the Prime Minister's late father-in-law, who passed away last November, and was a Bible teacher and researcher.
The Tanach Study Circle, held in cooperation with the Menachem Begin Heritage Center, was reinstated two years ago, renewing a tradition started by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, and which was continued by its sixth prime minister, Menachem Begin. This evening's meeting focused on the Book of Ruth, which is read on the holiday Shavuot taking place this week.
"I have always thought and believed that the Bible is the foundation of our existence here," Prime Minister Netanyahu said. "Otherwise we would be somewhere else or nowhere at all. The influence of the written words has not lessened over the generations; on the contrary, their strength has only increased.
"Therefore, I think that we need – here in the prime minister's residence – to focus on the Bible every few months."
At the start of the first lesson of the renewed Tanach Study Circle, Netanyahu said that "Ben-Gurion and Begin believed that the Bible should be the heritage of the entire nation – secular and religious, young and old, men and women.
"The Bible is the foundation of our existence. It unites the Jewish people, as it has throughout the generations. It also serves not only as a foundation but also as a map and compass.
The Bible is always relevant vis-à-vis today's problems and challenges. It inspires, it is a source of life for our people and I think that it is important to expand Bible study and love of the Bible among all parts of the nation.
"This is also the goal of this circle. I am certain that thanks to the researchers, rabbis and learned men and women here, who know and love the Bible, we will enrich our common knowledge."
It happens relatively frequently. Every once in a while, some daring
biblical researcher or pretentious archaeologist emerges to claim that he found
a clue that will lead him to the Ark of the Covenant.
According to Jewish tradition, the Tables of the Covenant, on which the Ten Commandments are inscribed, were kept in the ark within the temple. On June 4, the Jews celebrate Shavuot, which is identified with the Mount Sinai revelation.
But those who continue to search for the ark are not only Jews. The rest of the world has not yet abandoned the dream of finding the Holy Ark.
In July 2013, in an archaeological dig in ancient Shiloh, traces were found linking the place to the site of the Tabernacle, which housed the Ark of the Covenant until the construction of the temple. Two years earlier, in 2011, it had been argued that a church in Ethiopia was the secret repository of the ark.
If you ask the Temple Mount faithful, the answer is fairly straightforward: The ark is intact and well, securely protected within the Temple Mount itself. When we talked about the timing of the founding of the Third Temple, Rabbi Yehoshua Friedman of the Temple Institute told me, “There are 10 studies about the location of the Ark of the Covenant.
We read them and studied all of them, and reached the conclusion that it’s buried in the tunnels under the Temple Mount. When the day comes, we will get to it.”
Friedman is not the only one who believes this. Numerous other Jews have reached the same conclusion, and in 1981 attempts were made to hasten the longed-for day and excavate under the Temple Mount to reveal the ark. This was no underground activity by the obsessed.
It was an initiative involving the chief rabbis of the time, including Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Gedalia Schreiber, the director-general of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. The effort ultimately failed amid claims of a Muslim plot to thwart the discovery.
But Friedman errs in at least one way. There are many more than 10 theories regarding the whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant. Some of them seem totally delusional, but among them are some serious theories by erudite researchers determined to solve the ark riddle in our day.
In Steven Spielberg's classic movie, Adolf Hitler coveted the ark for its purported magical attributes, but the one who actually found it was the titular Indiana Jones.
Spielberg’s theory is inherently Hollywoodian and full of holes. Another Jones did more in-depth work on the subject: Archaeologist Wendell Jones argued that the ark was moved to the Dead Sea caves, and that he was the inspiration for the Indiana of movie fame. Obviously, no ark came to light in searches conducted in the Dead Sea area.
“According to the Book of Kings, the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple’s Holy of Holies by King Solomon, and from that moment on we have no evidence of its existence,” said Yigal Levin, a faculty member of the department of Jewish history at Bar Ilan University.
While the evidence might have petered out there, the theories were only beginning. As we know, Jerusalem was conquered frequently over the course of history. Nations came and left; kings robbed and religious leaders coveted. There were countless opportunities for the ark to travel to the ends of the world.
“Some claim that the ark was taken by the Queen of Sheba, who came to visit King Solomon,” explained Levin. “This is the basis for the theory that the ark is to be found in Ethiopia, and there are those who claim that it was taken by Egyptian King Shishak. This is the version familiar to us from the film 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.'"
The Ethiopian theory takes a surprising turn in the words of librarian and researcher of popular culture Eli Eshed. In an article he published on the Hebrew-language Reading Reindeer site under the headline “Raiders of the Ark of the Covenant,” Eshed quotes from a book published by Kelly D. Alexander. Alexander claims that during the Operation Moses campaign in 1991 to bring Ethiopian Jews to Israel, a parallel but very clandestine operation was conducted to return the Ark of the Covenant to Israel.
According to Jewish tradition, the Tables of the Covenant, on which the Ten Commandments are inscribed, were kept in the ark within the temple. On June 4, the Jews celebrate Shavuot, which is identified with the Mount Sinai revelation.
But those who continue to search for the ark are not only Jews. The rest of the world has not yet abandoned the dream of finding the Holy Ark.
In July 2013, in an archaeological dig in ancient Shiloh, traces were found linking the place to the site of the Tabernacle, which housed the Ark of the Covenant until the construction of the temple. Two years earlier, in 2011, it had been argued that a church in Ethiopia was the secret repository of the ark.
If you ask the Temple Mount faithful, the answer is fairly straightforward: The ark is intact and well, securely protected within the Temple Mount itself. When we talked about the timing of the founding of the Third Temple, Rabbi Yehoshua Friedman of the Temple Institute told me, “There are 10 studies about the location of the Ark of the Covenant.
We read them and studied all of them, and reached the conclusion that it’s buried in the tunnels under the Temple Mount. When the day comes, we will get to it.”
Friedman is not the only one who believes this. Numerous other Jews have reached the same conclusion, and in 1981 attempts were made to hasten the longed-for day and excavate under the Temple Mount to reveal the ark. This was no underground activity by the obsessed.
It was an initiative involving the chief rabbis of the time, including Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Gedalia Schreiber, the director-general of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. The effort ultimately failed amid claims of a Muslim plot to thwart the discovery.
But Friedman errs in at least one way. There are many more than 10 theories regarding the whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant. Some of them seem totally delusional, but among them are some serious theories by erudite researchers determined to solve the ark riddle in our day.
In Steven Spielberg's classic movie, Adolf Hitler coveted the ark for its purported magical attributes, but the one who actually found it was the titular Indiana Jones.
Spielberg’s theory is inherently Hollywoodian and full of holes. Another Jones did more in-depth work on the subject: Archaeologist Wendell Jones argued that the ark was moved to the Dead Sea caves, and that he was the inspiration for the Indiana of movie fame. Obviously, no ark came to light in searches conducted in the Dead Sea area.
“According to the Book of Kings, the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple’s Holy of Holies by King Solomon, and from that moment on we have no evidence of its existence,” said Yigal Levin, a faculty member of the department of Jewish history at Bar Ilan University.
While the evidence might have petered out there, the theories were only beginning. As we know, Jerusalem was conquered frequently over the course of history. Nations came and left; kings robbed and religious leaders coveted. There were countless opportunities for the ark to travel to the ends of the world.
“Some claim that the ark was taken by the Queen of Sheba, who came to visit King Solomon,” explained Levin. “This is the basis for the theory that the ark is to be found in Ethiopia, and there are those who claim that it was taken by Egyptian King Shishak. This is the version familiar to us from the film 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.'"
The Ethiopian theory takes a surprising turn in the words of librarian and researcher of popular culture Eli Eshed. In an article he published on the Hebrew-language Reading Reindeer site under the headline “Raiders of the Ark of the Covenant,” Eshed quotes from a book published by Kelly D. Alexander. Alexander claims that during the Operation Moses campaign in 1991 to bring Ethiopian Jews to Israel, a parallel but very clandestine operation was conducted to return the Ark of the Covenant to Israel.
According to the story, discussions were held at the highest echelons
between Israel and Ethiopian generals, and the latter received some millions of
dollars in exchange for permission to take the ark to Israel. Several Jewish
millionaires provided the money but the generals, who escaped to Switzerland,
did not know that the money delivered was fake.
The Israelis were careful to report the counterfeit money to the Swiss
banks, and the generals were arrested when they tried to deposit the loot.
Afterward, the Israelis turned to the rebel forces that took control of
Ethiopia at the time and gave them the real money. This money enabled the new
rulers to fund their activities, and in exchange they gave the ark to the
Israelis.
“I am very doubtful about the veracity of this story,” concluded Eshed. “It sounds like those fabricated tales that are so massively widespread on the Internet.”
“The most reasonable theory is that the ark remained in the Holy of Holies until the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.,” said Levin, “As far as we know, the ark was not taken to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed the temple, and it does not appear among the vessels returned by Cyrus, King of Persia, who authorized the rebuilding of the Second Temple.”
The argument concealed in the statement above is that it is likely that the Ark of the Covenant was destroyed together with the First Temple. But those who stand by the theory that the ark had been moved will say that it is hard to believe that the builders of the Second Temple did not find the ark if it was really buried there.
They, contrary to Goren, did enjoy free access to the Temple Mount. Thus, according to their version, the ark was either destroyed or moved around the world.
But even those who agree that the ark was taken to a secret place do not agree on who took it, when it was taken and to where.
One Jewish allegation connects the temple vessels to Italy. According to this allegation, the Arch of Titus displays the carrying of the temple vessels to Rome, including the Golden Candelabra; some argue that the Talmud also brings evidence of this (Tractate Me’ilot 17b).
According to this claim, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his disciple Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yossi, sailed to Rome (Tractate Gittin 56) and went to Caesar’s palace.
There, Elazar glimpsed the curtain (parochet) of the temple and the golden head plate of the high priest, and Shimon bar Yochai saw the Golden Candelabra. This Talmudic story is the basis for the claim that temple vessels are still hidden in the Vatican basements to this very day. If we let our imaginations run a bit further, perhaps the ark is there as well.
This story, too, is chronologically problematic, since many people claim that no Ark of the Covenant existed in the Second Temple. In any case, there are those who took this story very seriously, and in 2009 Jewish right-wing activists asked an Israeli court to issue a stay-of-exit order against Pope Benedict XVI when he visited Israel, with the demand that he return the holy vessels.
Many hold that it is only a matter of time until the whereabouts of the ark will be revealed. The Temple Mount faithful certainly believe that its discovery will be accompanied by the coming of the Messiah and the building of the Third Temple.
Others think that its detection will connect Moses and the contemporary Jewish nation once and for all. They believe that it will forge a permanent, indissoluble bond between the State of Israel and the Temple Mount, in other words affirming the right to settle in the land of Israel. Thus, we see that the Ark of the Covenant is not only a religious symbol, but a political tool as well.
“All we have are legends,” summarized Levin. “So long as no new testimonies emerge regarding the whereabouts of the ark, we have, in effect, no way at all of knowing where it is.”
“I am very doubtful about the veracity of this story,” concluded Eshed. “It sounds like those fabricated tales that are so massively widespread on the Internet.”
“The most reasonable theory is that the ark remained in the Holy of Holies until the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.,” said Levin, “As far as we know, the ark was not taken to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed the temple, and it does not appear among the vessels returned by Cyrus, King of Persia, who authorized the rebuilding of the Second Temple.”
The argument concealed in the statement above is that it is likely that the Ark of the Covenant was destroyed together with the First Temple. But those who stand by the theory that the ark had been moved will say that it is hard to believe that the builders of the Second Temple did not find the ark if it was really buried there.
They, contrary to Goren, did enjoy free access to the Temple Mount. Thus, according to their version, the ark was either destroyed or moved around the world.
But even those who agree that the ark was taken to a secret place do not agree on who took it, when it was taken and to where.
One Jewish allegation connects the temple vessels to Italy. According to this allegation, the Arch of Titus displays the carrying of the temple vessels to Rome, including the Golden Candelabra; some argue that the Talmud also brings evidence of this (Tractate Me’ilot 17b).
According to this claim, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his disciple Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yossi, sailed to Rome (Tractate Gittin 56) and went to Caesar’s palace.
There, Elazar glimpsed the curtain (parochet) of the temple and the golden head plate of the high priest, and Shimon bar Yochai saw the Golden Candelabra. This Talmudic story is the basis for the claim that temple vessels are still hidden in the Vatican basements to this very day. If we let our imaginations run a bit further, perhaps the ark is there as well.
This story, too, is chronologically problematic, since many people claim that no Ark of the Covenant existed in the Second Temple. In any case, there are those who took this story very seriously, and in 2009 Jewish right-wing activists asked an Israeli court to issue a stay-of-exit order against Pope Benedict XVI when he visited Israel, with the demand that he return the holy vessels.
Many hold that it is only a matter of time until the whereabouts of the ark will be revealed. The Temple Mount faithful certainly believe that its discovery will be accompanied by the coming of the Messiah and the building of the Third Temple.
Others think that its detection will connect Moses and the contemporary Jewish nation once and for all. They believe that it will forge a permanent, indissoluble bond between the State of Israel and the Temple Mount, in other words affirming the right to settle in the land of Israel. Thus, we see that the Ark of the Covenant is not only a religious symbol, but a political tool as well.
“All we have are legends,” summarized Levin. “So long as no new testimonies emerge regarding the whereabouts of the ark, we have, in effect, no way at all of knowing where it is.”
Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2014/June06/061.html#h3Elsb7yu35JAxUS.99 It happens relatively frequently. Every once in a while, some daring biblical researcher or pretentious archaeologist emerges to claim that he found a clue that will lead him to the Ark of the Covenant.
According to Jewish tradition, the Tables of the Covenant, on which the Ten Commandments are inscribed, were kept in the ark within the temple. On June 4, the Jews celebrate Shavuot, which is identified with the Mount Sinai revelation.
But those who continue to search for the ark are not only Jews. The rest of the world has not yet abandoned the dream of finding the Holy Ark.
In July 2013, in an archaeological dig in ancient Shiloh, traces were found linking the place to the site of the Tabernacle, which housed the Ark of the Covenant until the construction of the temple. Two years earlier, in 2011, it had been argued that a church in Ethiopia was the secret repository of the ark.
If you ask the Temple Mount faithful, the answer is fairly straightforward: The ark is intact and well, securely protected within the Temple Mount itself. When we talked about the timing of the founding of the Third Temple, Rabbi Yehoshua Friedman of the Temple Institute told me, “There are 10 studies about the location of the Ark of the Covenant.
We read them and studied all of them, and reached the conclusion that it’s buried in the tunnels under the Temple Mount. When the day comes, we will get to it.”
Friedman is not the only one who believes this. Numerous other Jews have reached the same conclusion, and in 1981 attempts were made to hasten the longed-for day and excavate under the Temple Mount to reveal the ark. This was no underground activity by the obsessed.
It was an initiative involving the chief rabbis of the time, including Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Gedalia Schreiber, the director-general of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. The effort ultimately failed amid claims of a Muslim plot to thwart the discovery.
But Friedman errs in at least one way. There are many more than 10 theories regarding the whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant. Some of them seem totally delusional, but among them are some serious theories by erudite researchers determined to solve the ark riddle in our day.
In Steven Spielberg's classic movie, Adolf Hitler coveted the ark for its purported magical attributes, but the one who actually found it was the titular Indiana Jones.
Spielberg’s theory is inherently Hollywoodian and full of holes. Another Jones did more in-depth work on the subject: Archaeologist Wendell Jones argued that the ark was moved to the Dead Sea caves, and that he was the inspiration for the Indiana of movie fame. Obviously, no ark came to light in searches conducted in the Dead Sea area.
“According to the Book of Kings, the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple’s Holy of Holies by King Solomon, and from that moment on we have no evidence of its existence,” said Yigal Levin, a faculty member of the department of Jewish history at Bar Ilan University.
While the evidence might have petered out there, the theories were only beginning. As we know, Jerusalem was conquered frequently over the course of history. Nations came and left; kings robbed and religious leaders coveted. There were countless opportunities for the ark to travel to the ends of the world.
“Some claim that the ark was taken by the Queen of Sheba, who came to visit King Solomon,” explained Levin. “This is the basis for the theory that the ark is to be found in Ethiopia, and there are those who claim that it was taken by Egyptian King Shishak. This is the version familiar to us from the film 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.'"
The Ethiopian theory takes a surprising turn in the words of librarian and researcher of popular culture Eli Eshed. In an article he published on the Hebrew-language Reading Reindeer site under the headline “Raiders of the Ark of the Covenant,” Eshed quotes from a book published by Kelly D. Alexander. Alexander claims that during the Operation Moses campaign in 1991 to bring Ethiopian Jews to Israel, a parallel but very clandestine operation was conducted to return the Ark of the Covenant to Israel.
According to the story, discussions were held at the highest echelons
between Israel and Ethiopian generals, and the latter received some millions of
dollars in exchange for permission to take the ark to Israel. Several Jewish
millionaires provided the money but the generals, who escaped to Switzerland,
did not know that the money delivered was fake.
The Israelis were careful to report the counterfeit money to the Swiss
banks, and the generals were arrested when they tried to deposit the loot.
Afterward, the Israelis turned to the rebel forces that took control of
Ethiopia at the time and gave them the real money. This money enabled the new
rulers to fund their activities, and in exchange they gave the ark to the
Israelis.
“I am very doubtful about the veracity of this story,” concluded Eshed. “It sounds like those fabricated tales that are so massively widespread on the Internet.”
“The most reasonable theory is that the ark remained in the Holy of Holies until the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.,” said Levin, “As far as we know, the ark was not taken to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed the temple, and it does not appear among the vessels returned by Cyrus, King of Persia, who authorized the rebuilding of the Second Temple.”
The argument concealed in the statement above is that it is likely that the Ark of the Covenant was destroyed together with the First Temple. But those who stand by the theory that the ark had been moved will say that it is hard to believe that the builders of the Second Temple did not find the ark if it was really buried there.
They, contrary to Goren, did enjoy free access to the Temple Mount. Thus, according to their version, the ark was either destroyed or moved around the world.
But even those who agree that the ark was taken to a secret place do not agree on who took it, when it was taken and to where.
One Jewish allegation connects the temple vessels to Italy. According to this allegation, the Arch of Titus displays the carrying of the temple vessels to Rome, including the Golden Candelabra; some argue that the Talmud also brings evidence of this (Tractate Me’ilot 17b).
According to this claim, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his disciple Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yossi, sailed to Rome (Tractate Gittin 56) and went to Caesar’s palace.
There, Elazar glimpsed the curtain (parochet) of the temple and the golden head plate of the high priest, and Shimon bar Yochai saw the Golden Candelabra. This Talmudic story is the basis for the claim that temple vessels are still hidden in the Vatican basements to this very day. If we let our imaginations run a bit further, perhaps the ark is there as well.
This story, too, is chronologically problematic, since many people claim that no Ark of the Covenant existed in the Second Temple. In any case, there are those who took this story very seriously, and in 2009 Jewish right-wing activists asked an Israeli court to issue a stay-of-exit order against Pope Benedict XVI when he visited Israel, with the demand that he return the holy vessels.
Many hold that it is only a matter of time until the whereabouts of the ark will be revealed. The Temple Mount faithful certainly believe that its discovery will be accompanied by the coming of the Messiah and the building of the Third Temple.
Others think that its detection will connect Moses and the contemporary Jewish nation once and for all. They believe that it will forge a permanent, indissoluble bond between the State of Israel and the Temple Mount, in other words affirming the right to settle in the land of Israel. Thus, we see that the Ark of the Covenant is not only a religious symbol, but a political tool as well.
“All we have are legends,” summarized Levin. “So long as no new testimonies emerge regarding the whereabouts of the ark, we have, in effect, no way at all of knowing where it is.”
“I am very doubtful about the veracity of this story,” concluded Eshed. “It sounds like those fabricated tales that are so massively widespread on the Internet.”
“The most reasonable theory is that the ark remained in the Holy of Holies until the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.,” said Levin, “As far as we know, the ark was not taken to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed the temple, and it does not appear among the vessels returned by Cyrus, King of Persia, who authorized the rebuilding of the Second Temple.”
The argument concealed in the statement above is that it is likely that the Ark of the Covenant was destroyed together with the First Temple. But those who stand by the theory that the ark had been moved will say that it is hard to believe that the builders of the Second Temple did not find the ark if it was really buried there.
They, contrary to Goren, did enjoy free access to the Temple Mount. Thus, according to their version, the ark was either destroyed or moved around the world.
But even those who agree that the ark was taken to a secret place do not agree on who took it, when it was taken and to where.
One Jewish allegation connects the temple vessels to Italy. According to this allegation, the Arch of Titus displays the carrying of the temple vessels to Rome, including the Golden Candelabra; some argue that the Talmud also brings evidence of this (Tractate Me’ilot 17b).
According to this claim, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his disciple Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yossi, sailed to Rome (Tractate Gittin 56) and went to Caesar’s palace.
There, Elazar glimpsed the curtain (parochet) of the temple and the golden head plate of the high priest, and Shimon bar Yochai saw the Golden Candelabra. This Talmudic story is the basis for the claim that temple vessels are still hidden in the Vatican basements to this very day. If we let our imaginations run a bit further, perhaps the ark is there as well.
This story, too, is chronologically problematic, since many people claim that no Ark of the Covenant existed in the Second Temple. In any case, there are those who took this story very seriously, and in 2009 Jewish right-wing activists asked an Israeli court to issue a stay-of-exit order against Pope Benedict XVI when he visited Israel, with the demand that he return the holy vessels.
Many hold that it is only a matter of time until the whereabouts of the ark will be revealed. The Temple Mount faithful certainly believe that its discovery will be accompanied by the coming of the Messiah and the building of the Third Temple.
Others think that its detection will connect Moses and the contemporary Jewish nation once and for all. They believe that it will forge a permanent, indissoluble bond between the State of Israel and the Temple Mount, in other words affirming the right to settle in the land of Israel. Thus, we see that the Ark of the Covenant is not only a religious symbol, but a political tool as well.
“All we have are legends,” summarized Levin. “So long as no new testimonies emerge regarding the whereabouts of the ark, we have, in effect, no way at all of knowing where it is.”
Friends,
leftists have always had a penchant for stifling liberty, their record in the
20th century and during the French Revolution is, I believe, quite clear that
they like despotism. I think it is ironic that an attack is taking place on a professor who teaches at a very liberal university, The University of Virginia.
I think the article below confirms my belief.
First,
same-sex marriage activists said you will be punished if you don't want to
participate in a same-sex wedding (e.g., the New Mexico photographer in Elane
Photography v. Willock).
Then
they said you'll be punished if you simply support the definition of marriage
as a man and a woman (e.g., Brendan Eich, the Benham brothers).
But
the same-sex marriage movement's appetite for McCarthyism is insatiable. Now
we're learning that, even if you publicly support same-sex marriage, you'll
still be punished if you think other people should not be punished for
believing marriage is between a man and a woman.
You'll
even be punished if you don't think people should be forced to buy other
people's abortions.
Activists
are demanding that he release his academic e-mail and cell phone records from
discussions he had with people who support traditional man-woman marriage and
religious liberty. University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, a
same-sex marriage supporter and one of the leading First Amendment scholars in
the country, is the latest victim of the same-sex marriage movement's smear
campaign.
Laycock
earned these activists' scorn because he signed a scholars' letter saying that
both sides of the marriage issue should have religious and intellectual freedom
of conscience.
And
he also filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby and
Conestoga Wood Specialties cases arguing for religious liberty against
Obamacare's mandate that religious objectors buy early abortion pills and birth
control for other people.
In
other words, the same-sex marriage and abortion movements are targeting Laycock
because he favors tolerance.
The pressure is even indirectly targeted at the president of U.Va., who media
point out happens to be Laycock's wife.
Laycock's
attackers claim they aren't against academic freedom, but that is a sham. As
professors Stephen Bainbridge and Jonathan Adler point out, probing the emails,
cell phone records and legal discussions of a professor is inherently hostile
to academic freedom.
Laycock
and his wife are both being given the same ultimatum Brendan Eich received:
Recant, or lose your ability to do your job.
"There
is a gay mafia," quipped Bill Maher recently, "If you cross them, you
do get whacked."
Recently
over 50 pro-same-sex marriage scholars and intellectuals wrote a public letter
calling it intolerant to punish Eich for believing in man-woman marriage.
The
attack on Laycock shows that each one of those authors is now endangered by the
same-sex marriage and abortion movement's pogrom merely because they won't pick
up torches themselves.
Libertarians
beware. When you endorsed the movement to redefine marriage, perhaps you didn't
realize those same activists have no qualms about redefining liberty itself.
Coercion
is the new "freedom" for the same-sex marriage and abortion
movements. Thuggery to force people to participate in other people's same-sex
weddings, abortions, and birth control is the new
"non-discrimination."
Merely-tolerant
allies of same-sex marriage and abortion promoters will soon find themselves
"discarded into the ash heap of history," along with the millennia of
world cultures who have affirmed male-female complementarity and the dignity of
human life.
Matt Bowman is senior legal counsel with Alliance
Defending Freedom, which represents Conestoga Wood Specialties and other family
businesses in lawsuits against the Obama administration's abortion pill
mandate. The ADF also defended
Elane Photography in New Mexico.Friends, below is a link to a terrific organization check it out.
Mt 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Google Glass is one of the most
groundbreaking technologies to hit the market in a generation. It can, and
will, change everything. It will blur the lines between the digital world and
the real. The question is, at what cost? Consider for a moment what's coming.
Connectivity during every waking moment
People complain constantly about how television is little more than a barrage of advertisement, sometimes interrupted by programming which you actually care something about. There's a certain amount of truth to that. However the beauty of the television is that you can turn it off and walk away from it. You can go outside and get some fresh air, you can record it and fast forward through the ads. That's not as easy to do with Google Glasses.
They're on your head every hour you're awake; that means that for your every waking moment, you're bombarded by messages. Some of them are from friends and family, staying in touch as they normally would, just using a more high tech means of sending and receiving those messages, but what about the rest? What about the constant barrage of advertising that you can't escape from.
Most of us love our devices, so it's folly to expect that we would suddenly unplug from them, and since we probably won't, that means the barrage will continue unabated. It will be exhausting.
Connected, But Without Connection
Is having 24/7 connection to your friends and families the same thing as sharing a here and now, face to face, breathing-the-same-air connection with them? Most of us would say no. Being able to send an unfeeling text message at odd moments during the day isn't the same as genuine human interaction. It is interaction of a kind, but only through a machine proxy.
For all the talk about how technology brings us closer together, we find ourselves more and more isolated, peeking out of our isolation occasionally to send a filtered, machine driven, emotionless text message to those we care about most, and no, using emoticons doesn't somehow make the connection more real or valid. It's still machine filtered.
No quiet time
I don't know about you, but I use odd moments during my day to pray and think. When walking from store to store, I don't really want to be bombarded with ads. Even in the supermarket, I like to occasionally ask God to help me make good choices for myself and my family. Will I be tempted to forgo this time of connection with the Lord, in order to be connected at all times to the world?
Desensitization
With virtual reality images overlaying the real world all around us while we're awake, it will become increasingly difficult to discern the real world from the fake, digital world – which was in fact only created to sell us things more efficiently. That can't help but have the long term impact of making us at least somewhat desensitized to things going on in the real world.
In fact, how long before someone devises a program to filter out the things we don't want to see? Just overlay the things we wish to ignore with a virtual reality filter, and to our eyes, the things we don't want to look at simply vanish. That's the quick, painless, “feel good” solution, but of course, it doesn't actually do anything to make those problems go away, it simply shields our eyes from the things that maybe we desperately need to see.
It is this last bit that is probably the most concerning in the long run. If we can “filter out” that which we simply do not wish to see, that has to, by definition, impact our moral compass, because if a thing is out of sight, by way of digital sleight of hand or not, then it is probably also out of mind. Is that the future we want for ourselves?
Connectivity during every waking moment
People complain constantly about how television is little more than a barrage of advertisement, sometimes interrupted by programming which you actually care something about. There's a certain amount of truth to that. However the beauty of the television is that you can turn it off and walk away from it. You can go outside and get some fresh air, you can record it and fast forward through the ads. That's not as easy to do with Google Glasses.
They're on your head every hour you're awake; that means that for your every waking moment, you're bombarded by messages. Some of them are from friends and family, staying in touch as they normally would, just using a more high tech means of sending and receiving those messages, but what about the rest? What about the constant barrage of advertising that you can't escape from.
Most of us love our devices, so it's folly to expect that we would suddenly unplug from them, and since we probably won't, that means the barrage will continue unabated. It will be exhausting.
Connected, But Without Connection
Is having 24/7 connection to your friends and families the same thing as sharing a here and now, face to face, breathing-the-same-air connection with them? Most of us would say no. Being able to send an unfeeling text message at odd moments during the day isn't the same as genuine human interaction. It is interaction of a kind, but only through a machine proxy.
For all the talk about how technology brings us closer together, we find ourselves more and more isolated, peeking out of our isolation occasionally to send a filtered, machine driven, emotionless text message to those we care about most, and no, using emoticons doesn't somehow make the connection more real or valid. It's still machine filtered.
No quiet time
I don't know about you, but I use odd moments during my day to pray and think. When walking from store to store, I don't really want to be bombarded with ads. Even in the supermarket, I like to occasionally ask God to help me make good choices for myself and my family. Will I be tempted to forgo this time of connection with the Lord, in order to be connected at all times to the world?
Desensitization
With virtual reality images overlaying the real world all around us while we're awake, it will become increasingly difficult to discern the real world from the fake, digital world – which was in fact only created to sell us things more efficiently. That can't help but have the long term impact of making us at least somewhat desensitized to things going on in the real world.
In fact, how long before someone devises a program to filter out the things we don't want to see? Just overlay the things we wish to ignore with a virtual reality filter, and to our eyes, the things we don't want to look at simply vanish. That's the quick, painless, “feel good” solution, but of course, it doesn't actually do anything to make those problems go away, it simply shields our eyes from the things that maybe we desperately need to see.
It is this last bit that is probably the most concerning in the long run. If we can “filter out” that which we simply do not wish to see, that has to, by definition, impact our moral compass, because if a thing is out of sight, by way of digital sleight of hand or not, then it is probably also out of mind. Is that the future we want for ourselves?
No comments:
Post a Comment