Pro and Con 1297

Posted 8-10-06

The Vatican Wins The Oslo War

By Barry Chamish, 8-4-6
http://www.rense.com/general72/cham.htm

"Peres promised the pope East Jerusalem in May of 1992 and the Vatican wants to cash in now. But Sharon wasn't playing ball. In July of last year he actually banned diplomacy with the Vatican. So the Vatican tried working around him. In September they invited both Israeli chief rabbis to Rome to threaten the Jews if the holy sites of Jerusalem weren't handed over to them. In November, they hatched the Mount Zion plot, trading a Spanish church for the Last Supper room. President Katsav flew to the Vatican but Sharon still said no.

"Finally they knew Sharon had to go. Enter the apostolic nuncio Pietro Sambi. He plotted with Peres to finish Sharon and possibly supplied the poison Sharon drank in his final meeting with Peres on Dec. 18. On thing is certain, 18 hours before, after 8 1/2 years in Jerusalem, Sambi flew out for a new assignment in Washington.

"Once Olmert and Peres won the election, Peres flew to the Vatican taking with him a letter from Olmert to the pope. No one will say what was in the letter, but you can be sure he promised the pope "his land" and the war drastic enough to give it to him."

U.S., France Agree On Plan to Halt Lebanon Fighting

Beirut, Hezbollah Balk at U.N. Terms By Colum Lynch and Robin Wright, August 6, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500373.html?nav=rss_email/components

Incoming e-mail, Re: Need to Locate Diagram

I am looking for a picture/diagram of the Temple mount area that has the location of the site for the Red Heifer sacrifice and I think it had a line drawn to the Temple Holy of Holies.

I thought I had copied and pasted a link from one of your recent p/cs to see this but cannot find it after re reading some of the recent posts.

Can you send that link to me...

I think the distance of 2000 cubits from the Temple to the location of the sacrifice of the Red Heifer represents the distance from the time of the cross to the start of the Kingdom of God. God bless

My reply

We have had more computer troubles. I have lost my complete Web Page stored on my computer, my Mailbox and its incoming emails. Please resend anything important that I need to reply to.

Note: I can download my web site again from the server, but the emails are permanently gone.

The picture you wanted is at: http://www.greatcommission.com/TheRedHeiferandtheCrucifixion.html

The Red Heifer sacrifice

http://www.acesonline.org/Columnists/Jacoby/question_129.htm

The Mishnah says clearly that the priests offering the sacrifice of the Red Heifer needed to be able to see the altar of burnt offering from their vantage point on the Mount of Olives: "All the [Temple] walls were high, save only the eastern wall, because the priest that burns the Heifer and stands on top of the Mount of Olives should be able to look directly into the entrance of the sanctuary when the blood [of the Red Heifer] is sprinkled" (Middoth 2:4).

Since the Mount of Olives (Upper Mount Moriah) is taller than the Temple Mount (Lower Mount Moriah), the priests sacrificing at the third altar were able to look down on the Temple Mount and see (over the intentionally lowered wall) the altar of burnt offering....

Where was the Miphkad Altar, where the red heifer was burned, the "VANTAGE POINT ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES'?

The Red Heifer and the Crucifixion

Doug Jacoby, 1997
http://www.greatcommission.com/TheRedHeiferandtheCrucifixion.html

Then Solomon began to build the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to his father David. It was on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, the place provided by David (2 Chronicles 3:1)....THE MISHNAH SAYS CLEARLY THAT THE PRIESTS OFFERING THE SACRIFICE OF THE RED HEIFER NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING FROM THEIR VANTAGE POINT ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES:

All the [Temple] walls were high, save only the eastern wall, because the priest that burns the Heifer and stands ON TOP OF THE MOUNT OF OLIVES should be able to LOOK DIRECTLY INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE SANCTUARY when the blood [of the Red Heifer] is sprinkled (Middoth 2:4).
---
Red Heifer
By Randy Felton
http://www.haydid.org/redcow.htm

During the Temple periods this place was/is on the Mount of Olives. The altar of sacrifice and place of burning for the Red Heifer was AT OR NEAR THE TOP OF THE MOUNT OF OLIVES....

In Nehemiah 3:31 we read about the Gate Miphkad (KJV). Looking at the word Miphkad we can see that it means "appointed" and is translated so in several renderings. The word Miphkad appears in Ezekiel 43:21 also where it is translated appointed. This is referring to a specific place not a place in general. The rabbis have named the altar of sacrifice for the Red Heifer as the "MIPHKAD ALTAR"....

The significance for us is in regard to the rebuilding of the Temple. The Temple Mount has been trodden down by Gentiles for nearly 2000 years. The Temple was destroyed after it was defiled by Titus and has laid waste until covered over by Islam. Before a Temple can be rebuilt, the site must be cleansed. Before animal sacrifice can be reinstated, the site and stone altar ( of course an altar must be constructed first) must be cleansed.

This is why a Red Heifer is required. I still see a problem. Before a Red Heifer can be sacrificed and burned, there must be access to the altar site and place of burning on the Mount of Olives. The Mount of Olives is nearly all controlled by Arabs. The approximate site of the altar and place of burning is under Arab control and is "trodden down by Gentiles" and must be cleansed prior to any sacrifice or offering being made....

More about Noah's Ark being found

MUCH ABOUT HISTORY, June 30, 2006
Team believes it found Noah's Ark
Returns from Iranian mountain with petrified wood, marine fossils
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50857

The team returned with video footage of a large black formation, about 400 feet long – the length of the ark, according to the Bible – that looks like rock but bears the image of hundreds of massive, wooden, hand-hewn beams.
---
Ararat, the Cradle of Civilization?
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/ararat.html#noahark

...In ancient times sightings (of Noah's Ark) were reported by Berossus, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Targums, Josephus, Nicholas of Damascus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, the Pershita, Fautus of Byzantium, Epiphanius, Isidore of Seville, Eutychius, Al Masudi, Ibn Haukal, Zarariys ben Muhammad al Kazwine, and Benjamin of Tudela, covering from approximately 400 BC to the 13th century....

In the first century AD, Josephus discussing the royal family at Adiabene, remarks: ...{in} a district called Carra {Carron} in Adiabene-roughly between the upper and lower Zab Rivers, tributaries of the Tigris…the remains of the Ark in which report has it that Noah was saved from the flood…to this day are shown to those who are curious to see them.

Josephus added that this land is rich with Amomom, an herb which grows there (known to grow in the mountains of central Iran). In the third century Hippolytus wrote:

The relics of this Ark are ...shown to this day in the mountains called Ararat, which are situated in the direction of the country of the Adiabene {Iran}. And possibly Julius Africanus, also writing in the third century, has this location in mind:
...and the Ark settled on the mountains of Ararat, which we know to be in Parthia {Iran}....

Incoming e-mail, Re: Associates for Scriptural Knowledge

So do you feel the picture that I linked below in my email to you is accurate with your own study or if not, what differences do you have.
See and click on enlarge: http://askelm.com/

My reply

We have one main difference. I think the Temple was built in the southern half of the Temple Mount. ELM thought that it was built over the Gihon Spring in the City of David.

> > the Bible even indicated that the Temple was abutting to the northern side of the "City of David." This should have been a significant clue to the nineteenth century scholars that the original Temples had to be positioned very near the "City of David." on the southeast ridge, but those historians failed to make the needed correction. They retained the site of the Temple as being about 1000 feet to the north of the Gihon Spring

The Temple Mount does abut the northern side of the City of David. Does it say that the Temple was IN the City of David?

1Ki 8:1 says, "Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring UP (i.e., to the north, or to a higher spot) the ark of the covenant of the LORD OUT OF THE CITY OF DAVID (i.e., which was south of the Temple Mount), which is Zion."

The Ark did not stay in the City of David. Therefore, the Temple was not in the City of David.

2Ch 5:2 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD OUT OF THE CITY OF DAVID, which is Zion.

The Ark was taken "out of the city of David" and brought to the Temple, which abutted the northern side of the City of David.

> > The Gihon Spring is the only spring within the city limits of Jerusalem. We have the eyewitness account of a person from Egypt named Aristeas who viewed the Temple in about 285 B.C.E. He stated quite categorically that the Temple was located over an inexhaustible spring that welled up within the interior part of the Temple. 4 About 400 years later the Roman historian Tacitus gave another reference that the Temple at Jerusalem had within its precincts a natural spring of water that issued from its interior. 5 These two references are describing the Gihon Spring (the sole spring of water in Jerusalem).

The Temple Mount aqueduct brought the water from 7 springs, from about 7 miles away, a couple of miles below Bethlehem.

> > Jerusalem and the Temple (with their walls) were leveled to the ground — to the extent that even their very foundation stones were uprooted and overturned. No stone remained on top another, just as Jesus said would happen.

> > And for prime evidence of this fact, we have eyewitness accounts of both Josephus and Titus (the Roman general who conducted the war against the Jews) who give the description of utter ruin and thorough destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus and Titus mentioned that if they had not been in Jerusalem during the war and personally seen the demolition that took place, they would not have believed that there was once a city in the area. 21 But they were eyewitnesses to its utter ruin. It is significant that Josephus used the exact words of Jesus’ prophecy to describe the uprooted condition of even the foundation stones that constituted Jewish Jerusalem. He said:

"It [Jerusalem] was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was nothing left to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited." 22

The words "to the foundation" do not have to include the foundation. Foundations of houses were found in the city. Some people built upon those foundations.

> > According to Jesus in Luke 19:43,44, every structure of Jewish Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground —to the very bedrock. "For the days shall come upon thee [Jerusalem], that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another."...

> > Jesus taught that nothing would be left of the Temple, nothing left of the whole City of Jerusalem, and nothing left of the walls of the Temple and the City.

That goes farther than necessary, for the bottom row of stones in the foundation could be left.

> > Was Jesus correct in his prophecies? Was Jerusalem with its Temple and walls leveled to the ground? What is remarkable is the fact that the eyewitness accounts given by Josephus and Titus agree precisely with what Jesus prophesied. Note what these two men observed. "It [Jerusalem with its walls] was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited" (War VII.1,1).

Leveled to the ground can mean that it was leveled "to the foundation," which was built below ground level.

> > Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? it is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing left but THAT MONUMENT of it preserved, I mean THE CAMP OF THOSE [the Romans] that hath destroyed it, WHICH STILL DWELLS UPON ITS RUINS; some unfortunate old men also lie ashes upon the of the Temple [the Temple was then in total ruins — all of it had been burnt to ashes

Originally, Herod's Temple was on the southern half of the Temple Mount. Fort Antonia was on the northern half. After the destruction, Fort Antonia dwelt upon the Temple's ruins. Therefore, the Temple Mount platform still stood amid the rubble of stones that were pushed off the top of it. Fort Antonia was then expanded to cover the entire mount.

> > The only thing continuing to exist was the "monument" (a single monument) preserved by Titus. And what was that "monument"? Eleazar said it was "the camp of those that destroyed it [Jerusalem], WHICH STILL DWELLS UPON ITS RUINS."...

> > Because Antonia was the property of Rome, they had no reason to destroy those buildings that already belonged to the Romans. That is why Titus left Fort Antonia (the Haram esh-Sharif) and its walls in tact (as we see them today).

For Fort Antonia to dwell upon the Temple's ruins, Fort Antonia expanded to take in the whole Temple Mount. Agape

About Time Design

The Earth-Moon routinely generates day and night, lunar phases, seasons, and years. Time cycles generated by the Earth-Moon can be interpreted to all belong to an intelligently arranged time-grid.
http://www.creation-answers.com/design.htm

Looking at the Earth-Moon
The Earth-Moon generates time in a format that benefits us all. Day precedes night, and night revolves back into day. The Moon waxes and wanes. The seasons change with the equinoxes and the solstices. In the modern era we have learned to use a numbering system to represent the Earth-Moon phenomena. The average day-unit is defined to be 24 hours long (or also 86,400 seconds). Modern measurements indicate that the lunar-month cycle completes in 29.5306 days (on the average). Current measurements also show that the year elapses in 365.2422 solar days. The following paragraphs and accompanying articles will attempt to show that the time cycles generated by the Earth-Moon seem to represent more than unrelated numbers. In fact, these respective time cycles appear to all be elements of an intelligently arranged time grid. Essentially, progressions of day and night, lunar phases, and annual cycles all seem to work together to divide time into a functional arrangement. What about the lunar cycle? The Moon is quite a riddle in that the lunar period of 29.53059 days doesn't directly interface with the length of either the day or the year. Because the lunar cycle doesn't interface with days or years according to a simple arrangement then an elaborate, or more sophisticated, lunisolar interface is perhaps indicated. The good news is that the phases of the Moon do seem to intelligently interface with the length of the year (over average time). It is very clear that a luni-based time grid exactly overlays a time grid of 7 years. For comprehensive documentation concerning the remarkably perfect interface between the Moon and 7 sets of 7 years, refer to the following online publications: A Case for Created Time? An Interrelated System Functional Time Design The cited lunisolar interface is significant because an interpretation based upon the lunar phases so clearly points to the possibility of a special creation. The day-rate problem In a fully interrelated system, rates of solar days, lunar months, and annual circles (or solar years) must all satisfactorily interface together. It is here significant that the Earth-Moon can be interpreted to comprise a fully interrelated system. Essentially, the spin of the Earth, the orbit of the Moon, and the orbit of the Earth around the Sun can all be recognized to interface together. For additional information concerning how the day-unit appears to intelligently interrelate with both the rate of the synodic month and with the rate of the solar year, refer to the following online publications: An Interrelated System Functional Time Design Tracking the Day-of-the-Sun The demonstrable existence of a tight interface between rates of solar days, lunar phases, and solar years points to the possibility that the Earth-Moon has been functionally designed. Ancient astronomy Of significance to a study of interrelated time design is that some ancient astronomers appear to have used nothing more than simple axioms and primitive scribing methods in their effective track of the lunar and solar orbits. Some of the most practical adages pertaining to cosmology can be recited from texts written in the Second-Temple Era. What is significant to a research of time design is that some of the early-used methods for tracking time appear to have been synonymous to an accurate meter of the spin-orbits. Essentially, it appears that astronomers who lived in the ancient past did once track the completion progress of the Earth-Moon orbits to within a degree of even perfect accuracy (on the average). For pertinent information of ancient astronomy and of ancient astronomers, refer to the following online publications: Tracking the Day-of-Sun Significance of 40 Days Looking at Ancient Astronomy A Significant Circle of Seven The Jubilee Cycle The Significance of 70 Years... It seems significant that the Earth-Moon rather perfectly interfaces with 7 sets of 7 years. Clearly, a systems view of the combined rates of days, lunar phases, and years is possible.

Incoming e-mailThe Fire and the Cloud

http://philologos.org/guide/books/reiland.robert.htm

Some of the most dramatic events in this book are revealed in this sequence of events preceding the withdrawal of Shechinah. During the 4th century B.C., several miracles manifested during worship in the Second Temple. Briefly, these were:

-- The lot piece selecting the Atonement goat always came up in the Priest’s right hand.

—— The westernmost of the seven candlesticks (Menorah) along the south wall of the Temple always outlasted the other six candles, even though all candles were filled to the same level with the oil and the western candle was lighted first, and the other six being lighted from it.

— The crimson strap tied under the Scapegoat’s throat always turned white as snow when the goat reached the wilderness as Israel’s sins were forgiven on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur.

-- By the Law, only two logs could be placed on the Altar for each day’s sacrifices and those two always lasted for a full day of sacrifices. During certain rites, each priest received a morsel of the shewbread about the size of an olive. The priest ate it and always was satisfied as if he had enjoyed a full meal; sometimes even leaving a portion uneaten.

During the years after the 4th century, “sometimes” these miracles would show. And, when they did, a good omen was seen. Then came the period extending from The Crucifixion (30 A.D. until Titus’ destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.) During that time, which the Rabbis mournfully call “forty years before the Temple was destroyed”:

The lot piece never came up in the Priest’s right hand.
The westernmost candle never outlasted the other candles.
The crimson strap from the Scapegoat never turned white.
The logs for the Altar never burned for a full day.
The shewbread morsel never satisfied, seeming more “like a bean.”
At the end of that forty year period of lament (30 A.D. —— 70 A.D.) Israel´s Shechinah departed. Talmud shows that Jewish teachers of that time knew these “signs” signalled that disaster was approaching. (Some of them even knew WHY!)

TEMPLE MOUNT VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY TOUR

Richley H. Crapo, Utah State University. c. 2002
http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/Tmplemnt.htm

CISTERN; WELL; POOL; AQUEDUCT

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/C/CISTERN%3B+WELL%3B+POOL%3B+AQUEDUCT/ It (the Great Sea) is 43 ft. deep with a storage capacity of over two million gallons and there are numerous access manholes. This cistern is fed by an aqueduct from Solomon's Pools about 10 miles distant by road, and is locally known as Bahar el Kebir, the "Great Sea."

   Pro and Con 1298   Or Return   Home


Contact me for more information at: mjagee1@earthlink.net


Send me e-mail now


8641 Sugar Gum Rd, Riverside, CA 92508, USA; (951) 653-4110


© 1996-2006, Marilyn J. Agee
Updated 8-10-06