The Ark Of The Covenant

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Back to the topic though - I have to wonder if the Ethopian church really is guarding a secret... that the supposed ark is just another form of publicity stunt to legitamize their religion and possibly increase attendance/tourism/pilgramidges.

 

That is exactly what I was thinking. IF they do have it, I would suspect they are not prepared by any means to keep it. Between Israel and Islamic countries, I think it would start a Holy War, possibly Armageddon.

 

I even went as far as to speculate that the Catholics know the Ark is there, possibly seen via secret observation; and are in on the holding out.

 

But, with advancement in technology, at some point some crazy nutjob militia will try to see it, or get there hands on it.

 

Ooops, nevermind, I just reread your post You are with the 'stunt' crowd. You think it is a stunt.

[mwc]

The rock is where the Holy of Hollies was originally located, to which they are suppose to pray too.

It is where the holy of holies was believed to have been located. No one knows for certain. The Jews are not "suppose to pray" to it. I don't know where you're getting this information. On Rosh Hashanah the high priest entered the holy of holies but this is unrelated to what you seem to be saying.

 

The point is that they both pray to the Rock, or near the Rock because of what used to sit there, the Holy of Hollies. Then you have this church in the OP that says they actually have the Holy of Hollies, via the Ark of the Covenant.

No. They neither of them pray to the rock because of the ark, what it contained or what it represented. The holy of holies (a naos) was the room that held the ark (and other items). A holy of holies was present in most every temple (all I can think of) and not just the one in Jerusalem.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

The rock is where the Holy of Hollies was originally located, to which they are suppose to pray too.

It is where the holy of holies was believed to have been located. No one knows for certain. The Jews are not "suppose to pray" to it. I don't know where you're getting this information. On Rosh Hashanah the high priest entered the holy of holies but this is unrelated to what you seem to be saying.

 

The point is that they both pray to the Rock, or near the Rock because of what used to sit there, the Holy of Hollies. Then you have this church in the OP that says they actually have the Holy of Hollies, via the Ark of the Covenant.

No. They neither of them pray to the rock because of the ark, what it contained or what it represented. The holy of holies (a naos) was the room that held the ark (and other items). A holy of holies was present in most every temple (all I can think of) and not just the one in Jerusalem.

 

mwc

Are you having PMS MWC? Just wondering. Okay, so they pray toward the room that the Rock is located because it was thought to be the location of where the Holy of Hollies sat. Better? Same point,...but...Is that better for you?

[Guest Davka]

If it turned out to be real, the effect (if any) on modern Christianity would depend on what was inside the Ark. If it was empty, I don't see that it would have any more or less effect than any other Biblical archaeological artifact.

 

If it had the stone tablets from Sinai, a clay jar full of manna, and Aaron's staff, it would depend on a number of things - what is actually written on those tablets? Can they be determined to have been chiseled with a metal tool? What is the actual composition of manna (assuming it's in any shape to be analyzed)?

 

It seems to me that an actual Ark with actual contents would be more likely to pose problems for Christianity than not. But I might be wrong - the Shroud of Turin has been debunked more times than I can count, yet belief in it still persists.

 

In fact, it is unlikely that such a discovery would have any real effect, regardless of what a scientific examination revealed. If faith were based on logic, there would be no Christians.

[Guest Davka]

Oy - major misinformation regarding the Dome of the Rock and the Holy of Holies. Let me try to clear things up a bit:

 

- The rock under the Dome of the Rock is considered holy by Muslims because they believe it to be the spot from which Mohammed magically ascended to Heaven on a white stallion. It has nothing to do with belief in the Jewish Temple.

 

- Most historians and archaologists agree that the Dome of the Rock is not built over the Holy of Holies. The floor of the Holy of Holies was bedrock which had been shaped and chiseled into a flat, square floor. The Rock inside the Dome is bedrock, but it is craggy and unshaped. It is also in the wrong place: The Temple (as far as we can tell) was built directly across from the Gate Beautiful, which is further uphill (West) on the Temple Mount.

 

- There actually is a place directly across from the Gate Beautiful where the bedrock has been squared off and flattened. It is inside a minor building being used for secular purposes. Little else is known, because the Muslim authority will not allow any archaological examination of the Temple Mount.

 

- The Western Wall is the closest outdoor spot to the squared-off bedrock mentioned above, but it is possible to get even closer by going underground. There is a tunnel following the Western Wall towards the West, and there is a spot underground that has been determined to be opposite the Gate Beautiful, where Orthodox Jews go to pray whenever they can. It is not possible for more than a few people to pray there at a time, however, because there isn't room. That's why the outdoor area on the Western Wall Plaza remains the most popular place for Jews to pray.

[Abiyoyo]

Here's an excerpt I found. Getting back to the Op, If this the Ark's true location, How do you think it would change Christian theology?

 

Bob Cornuke, biblical investigator, international explorer and best-selling author, has participated in more than 27 expeditions around the world searching for lost locations described in the Bible. A man some consider a real-life Indiana Jones, he has written a book titled "Relic Quest" about the Ark of the Covenant and participated in History Channel production called "Digging for Truth." Cornuke will travel to Ethiopia soon for the 13th time since he began his search for the Ark. He told WND he believes it is possible Ethiopia could have the real artifact.

 

"They either have the Ark of the Covenant or they have a replica that they have believed to be the Ark of the Covenant for 2,000 years," he said. Cornuke said, if it is genuine, there's a plausible explanation of how the Ark may have come to the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion in Ethiopia.

 

"The Ark could have been taken out of the temple during the time of the atrocities of Manasseh," he said. "We have kind of a bread crumb trail that appears to go to Egypt, and it stayed on an island there for a couple hundred years called Elephantine Island. The Ark then was transferred over to Lake Tana in Ethiopia where it stayed on Tana Qirqos Island for 800 years. Then it was taken to Axum, where it is enshrined in a temple today where they don't let anybody see it."

 

Cornuke said he traveled to Tana Qirqos Island and lived with monks who remain there even today.

"They unlocked this big, four-inch thick wood door," he said. "It opened up to a treasure room, and they showed me meat forks and bowls and things that they say are from Solomon's temple. When the History Channel did this show, they said it was one of the largest viewed shows. People were fascinated."

 

He said Ethiopians consider the Ark to be the ultimate holy object, and the church guards the suspected artifact from the "eyes and pollution of man." "In Ethiopia, their whole culture is centered around worshipping this object," Cornuke said. "Could they have the actual Ark? I think I could make a case that they actually could."

[Guest Davka]

Why would it change anything? Unless it turns out that there are really only 3 commandments, and the rest were made up later . . .

[Ouroboros]

The first stone tablet will say:

 

Extra! Extra! Virgin Marion found her true love and marries David. Read all about it on page 52.

 

And the other says:

 

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,

One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

 

 

And the manna will prove to be mushrooms.

 

Sorry Yoyo! I couldn't help it. We were supposed to be serious. Sorry, sorry.

 

If the tablets and the ark really existed, I think it would be very cool. Nothing more. It would prove that Judaism is the true religion, and we'd have a mass-exodus from the Southern Baptist Churches.

[dagnarus]

Here's an excerpt I found. Getting back to the Op, If this the Ark's true location, How do you think it would change Christian theology?

 

Personally I think this would be far more profitable if first you said how you think it would change Christian theology, and more importantly you explained why.

[mwc]

Are you having PMS MWC? Just wondering. Okay, so they pray toward the room that the Rock is located because it was thought to be the location of where the Holy of Hollies sat. Better? Same point,...but...Is that better for you?

Yes. I've been turned into a giant cunt and am PMS'ing as a result of your inane posts. Next I shall "sweat blood" as your lord did. This truly explains the giant tampon that runs-away in garden scene. The lord needed some privacy to change.

 

Seeing how Davka decided to actually take the time and correct a bunch of info why don't you actually try telling us the answer to your OP rather than just fishing around? There's no real topic here.

 

How the hell do YOU think the magical Jew box would change xianity? Hmmmmmmm???????

 

mwc

[Guest]

Oy - major misinformation regarding the Dome of the Rock and the Holy of Holies. Let me try to clear things up a bit:

 

- The rock under the Dome of the Rock is considered holy by Muslims because they believe it to be the spot from which Mohammed magically ascended to Heaven on a white stallion. It has nothing to do with belief in the Jewish Temple.

 

- Most historians and archaologists agree that the Dome of the Rock is not built over the Holy of Holies. The floor of the Holy of Holies was bedrock which had been shaped and chiseled into a flat, square floor. The Rock inside the Dome is bedrock, but it is craggy and unshaped. It is also in the wrong place: The Temple (as far as we can tell) was built directly across from the Gate Beautiful, which is further uphill (West) on the Temple Mount.

 

 

I thought the muslim rock was a meteorite that hit the desert. Granted, I think this because of Bill Maher's interview with some muslim in "Religious". The Imam or whoever was telling Bill that the rock is holy because it is a black rock, and their are no other black rocks anywhere in the area, therefore it is a rock from allah. Bill asked point blank if he ever applied the modern knowledge of meteorites to explain the "mysterious" rock and he was met with the classic Deer In The Headlights Stare. (heretofore to be referred to as the DITHS).

 

So is Bill Maher wrong or am I misunderstanding that section of the film?

[mwc]

I thought the muslim rock was a meteorite that hit the desert. Granted, I think this because of Bill Maher's interview with some muslim in "Religious". The Imam or whoever was telling Bill that the rock is holy because it is a black rock, and their are no other black rocks anywhere in the area, therefore it is a rock from allah. Bill asked point blank if he ever applied the modern knowledge of meteorites to explain the "mysterious" rock and he was met with the classic Deer In The Headlights Stare. (heretofore to be referred to as the DITHS).

 

So is Bill Maher wrong or am I misunderstanding that section of the film?

Wrong rock. You're thinking of the one in Mecca. The one we're talking about is on the temple mount in Jerusalem.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

and we'd have a mass-exodus from the Southern Baptist Churches.

 

[Abiyoyo]

Here's an excerpt I found. Getting back to the Op, If this the Ark's true location, How do you think it would change Christian theology?

 

Personally I think this would be far more profitable if first you said how you think it would change Christian theology, and more importantly you explained why.

 

 

Are you having PMS MWC? Just wondering. Okay, so they pray toward the room that the Rock is located because it was thought to be the location of where the Holy of Hollies sat. Better? Same point,...but...Is that better for you?

Yes. I've been turned into a giant cunt and am PMS'ing as a result of your inane posts. Next I shall "sweat blood" as your lord did. This truly explains the giant tampon that runs-away in garden scene. The lord needed some privacy to change.

 

Seeing how Davka decided to actually take the time and correct a bunch of info why don't you actually try telling us the answer to your OP rather than just fishing around? There's no real topic here.

 

How the hell do YOU think the magical Jew box would change xianity? Hmmmmmmm???????

 

mwc

 

Okay. Yes, I believe it would change modern theology to an extant. IF the Ark of the Covenant is there, and is the real thing. I believe that it be possible that the Islam's and Jews direct their rank of 'holiness' toward the ark.

 

In the Christian aspect though, I believe it would cause a great confusion by the masses to most normal church going Christians. I believe it would challenge their faith. Many Jesus goers refer to the OT as, informative, historical, BUT dead in a sense, and rewritten by Jesus and the Gospels.

 

That is just one side of things though. This church also uses some books in their Bible that is not canonized by the Protestant church, nor the Roman Catholics, such as the Books of Enoch. So, if they have a 'still glowing' Ark sitting in their church; I could see other avenues in doctrine opening up, as well as some workings and different focus on the Biblical structure.

[mwc]

Here's an excerpt I found. Getting back to the Op, If this the Ark's true location, How do you think it would change Christian theology?

 

Bob Cornuke, biblical investigator, international explorer and best-selling author

I didn't read this until just now. Bob Cornuke? Seriously? I linked his name at wikipedia for anyone here this name doesn't immediately sound alarms for.

 

You'd be better off finding a crazy street preacher than this guy. The guy who "finds" all sorts of shit but never, ever, ever, presents it to anyone EVER. The ark. Both of them. Noah's and Moses'. He's an ark magnet this guy. Mt. Sinai. The "real" one. But those evil muslims took his "mountain" of evidence (bad pun intended). What else (I'll have to go look). Oh. Paul's boat. Just the one? Paul sank lots of times. Can't find'em all I guess.

 

mwc

[Shyone]

 

That is just one side of things though. This church also uses some books in their Bible that is not canonized by the Protestant church, nor the Roman Catholics, such as the Books of Enoch. So, if they have a 'still glowing' Ark sitting in their church; I could see other avenues in doctrine opening up, as well as some workings and different focus on the Biblical structure.

I would say that most Christians take the OT as truth, but largely irrelevant. If someone found the ark, I would expect the typical comment to be, "That's nice. Have you found Jesus?"

 

Same with the sling that David used, the jaw-bone of an ass that Sampson used, etc. "How interesting! Have you found Jesus?"

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Same with the sling that David used, the jaw-bone of an ass that Sampson used, etc. "How interesting! Have you found Jesus?"

 

I say I think it will cause confusion because of the possible uproar of the Muslims and Jews. Of course, since the recent accepting of the Ethiopian Church by the Roman Catholics; revealing the Ark there would be interesting. I think it would be far more question opening than the two artifacts you mentioned. The Ark of the Covenant are both held in significance with the Islamic and Jews.

 

Christians, Jews, and Muslims would all be intense about this discovery; just because the Ten Commandments are supposedly in it, and according to the Ethiopian Patriarch, well preserved.

 

Want to add that if these things are there, and preserved, and genuine; this would definitely in my mind change Christian logic and Theology.

 

I would have to wonder if the Ethiopian church, just as the Roman Catholics; would then become a strong accredit to Christ, having a genuine artifact, hypothetically, dated properly to an ancient time frame.

 

Would Christianity begin to see the other canon of the Bible as authoritative because this church, division, have such a significant artifact?

 

That getting back to my original thought. Roman Catholics have Peter, and the Ethiopian Orthodox would have The Ark of the Covenant of the God of Israel, one of the most sacred things in the Bible.

[mwc]

Okay. Yes, I believe it would change modern theology to an extant. IF the Ark of the Covenant is there, and is the real thing. I believe that it be possible that the Islam's and Jews direct their rank of 'holiness' toward the ark.

The ark is a Jewish artifact. They'd want it back. If pressed I think they'd go to war over that particular artifact. And who's to fight them off? The Ethiopians? Good luck. I just read today that Israel is looking to Iran over this nuclear issue. I doubt that little village would really be that off-putting. Especially if they got it in their heads the third temple and all that somehow hinged on it like xians might.

 

In the Christian aspect though, I believe it would cause a great confusion by the masses to most normal church going Christians. I believe it would challenge their faith. Many Jesus goers refer to the OT as, informative, historical, BUT dead in a sense, and rewritten by Jesus and the Gospels.

And beyond connecting this to the third temple I don't see how this changes. I see this as "See? Yet another proof that the OT is true. That Moses and the exodus was real. That Jesus came and did away with all that and this is the proof given to the christians to guard to be revealed at the appropriate time." That's roughly how I see it sold. It had to be taken from the Jews who would use it to re-establish the temple and/or the law. So xians took possession until the end times. Now we get end times nutters using it to show how right their xianity is. Now is the time to rebuild the temple and kill people and make wars. On and on. Yuck. No thanks.

 

That is just one side of things though. This church also uses some books in their Bible that is not canonized by the Protestant church, nor the Roman Catholics, such as the Books of Enoch. So, if they have a 'still glowing' Ark sitting in their church; I could see other avenues in doctrine opening up, as well as some workings and different focus on the Biblical structure.

Who cares what they have as holy texts? As you said the Catholics use books the Protestants don't. And that's done what? Nothing. So a magic box will suddenly make people see these texts differently?

 

Okay. 1 Enoch. The earth is flat. Angels roll the sun and other shit around to make them work. Wind works because little windows get opened in heaven. Do YOU accept this? Do YOU accept this nonsense? If you say "NO" then you are CHERRY PICKING what you wish to believe from that text and should quit arguing for the value of the text as a whole. I realize it's exciting when you make discoveries, I really do, but what "avenues" do you expect to "open up" that ideas like the flat earth simply won't allow? People won't accept a text that has this. The Ethiopians? Maybe. For now. But not a modern society magic box or not.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

 

I would say that most Christians take the OT as truth, but largely irrelevant. If someone found the ark, I would expect the typical comment to be, "That's nice. Have you found Jesus?"

 

Same with the sling that David used, the jaw-bone of an ass that Sampson used, etc. "How interesting! Have you found Jesus?"

 

But I do see your point here, and it could be possible that Christianity just writes it off as a tourist attraction.

[Shyone]

 

That getting back to my original thought. Roman Catholics have Peter, and the Ethiopian Orthodox would have The Ark of the Covenant of the God of Israel, one of the most sacred things in the Bible.

You raise some interesting points. I would hate to see two people at war over the same symbol or artifact. That would be a lot like the temple mount.

 

Artifact worship is one of those things that was really, really big in the early church. Blood and bones of saints, robes, nails, pieces of wood, and so forth. I think you would probably be horrified to actually see the Roman Catholics drag out their sacred relics. Yeecchhh.

 

I also think that most people these days (excluding Catholics?) have a much higher degree of suspicion about the authenticity of such relics, and probably view them as historical artifacts rather than objects of worship.

 

Unless you have some view about the Ark that makes it extremely unique or powerful, it would just be a remarkable archeological discovery, and would probably confirm a lot of people's beliefs, but most say they don't really care.

 

Witness the fervor over the Shroud of Turin, a medieval forgery. That doesn't stop the faithful.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Unless you have some view about the Ark that makes it extremely unique or powerful, it would just be a remarkable archeological discovery, and would probably confirm a lot of people's beliefs, but most say they don't really care.

 

Witness the fervor over the Shroud of Turin, a medieval forgery. That doesn't stop the faithful.

 

Well, supposedly, the Ark in the Ethiopian church still emits a light, that again, supposedly, all the prior monks there had developed cataracts. And, does anyone think it is odd that they were going to reveal the Ark, but before that they visited Pope Benedict, and decided not too.

 

I have read many articles of this Orthodox, and I have been amazed. They are embedded and direct about the Ark coming from Solomon, as the Catholics are about Peter.

[Shyone]

 

 

Unless you have some view about the Ark that makes it extremely unique or powerful, it would just be a remarkable archeological discovery, and would probably confirm a lot of people's beliefs, but most say they don't really care.

 

Witness the fervor over the Shroud of Turin, a medieval forgery. That doesn't stop the faithful.

 

Well, supposedly, the Ark in the Ethiopian church still emits a light, that again, supposedly, all the prior monks there had developed cataracts. And, does anyone think it is odd that they were going to reveal the Ark, but before that they visited Pope Benedict, and decided not too.

 

I have read many articles of this Orthodox, and I have been amazed. They are embedded and direct about the Ark coming from Solomon, as the Catholics are about Peter.

 

You're not planning an Indiana Jones, are you?

[dagnarus]

Okay. Yes, I believe it would change modern theology to an extant. IF the Ark of the Covenant is there, and is the real thing. I believe that it be possible that the Islam's and Jews direct their rank of 'holiness' toward the ark.

The ark is a Jewish artifact. They'd want it back. If pressed I think they'd go to war over that particular artifact. And who's to fight them off? The Ethiopians? Good luck. I just read today that Israel is looking to Iran over this nuclear issue. I doubt that little village would really be that off-putting. Especially if they got it in their heads the third temple and all that somehow hinged on it like xians might.

 

 

I heard that the Israelis who are actually interested in rebuilding the temple are a fringe minority. The majority couldn't give two shits, and would rather not piss off the muslims over a piece of dirt. Given that I couldn't really see them getting up in arms about the ark of the covenant.

[mwc]

I heard that the Israelis who are actually interested in rebuilding the temple are a fringe minority. The majority couldn't give two shits, and would rather not piss off the muslims over a piece of dirt. Given that I couldn't really see them getting up in arms about the ark of the covenant.

I was afraid this would take this sort of turn which is why I didn't want to entertain the crazy idea to begin with...

 

Maybe I should phrase it a little differently (a little more generically just to convey the idea)? If the religious folks over in Israel get the idea in their head that this ark is something to tie into their end-times eschatology (ie. the third temple and whatnot) then I could very well see that escalating into a situation that I described. It doesn't take much to whip people up into a frenzy and if the right people get into the right places (ie. look at the US when "W" got into power...the religious had his ear) then you can see what I was basically thinking.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

The ark is a Jewish artifact. They'd want it back. If pressed I think they'd go to war over that particular artifact. And who's to fight them off? The Ethiopians? Good luck. I just read today that Israel is looking to Iran over this nuclear issue. I doubt that little village would really be that off-putting. Especially if they got it in their heads the third temple and all that somehow hinged on it like xians might.

 

Maybe that's the reason for the recent acceptance by the Roman Catholics, and the reason they decided not to unveil it.

 

 

And beyond connecting this to the third temple I don't see how this changes. I see this as "See? Yet another proof that the OT is true. That Moses and the exodus was real. That Jesus came and did away with all that and this is the proof given to the christians to guard to be revealed at the appropriate time." That's roughly how I see it sold. It had to be taken from the Jews who would use it to re-establish the temple and/or the law. So xians took possession until the end times. Now we get end times nutters using it to show how right their xianity is. Now is the time to rebuild the temple and kill people and make wars. On and on. Yuck. No thanks.

 

Beginning to consider that notion, that it will just be another tourist attraction to Christianity.

 

 

Who cares what they have as holy texts? As you said the Catholics use books the Protestants don't. And that's done what? Nothing. So a magic box will suddenly make people see these texts differently?

 

Okay. 1 Enoch. The earth is flat. Angels roll the sun and other shit around to make them work. Wind works because little windows get opened in heaven. Do YOU accept this? Do YOU accept this nonsense? If you say "NO" then you are CHERRY PICKING what you wish to believe from that text and should quit arguing for the value of the text as a whole. I realize it's exciting when you make discoveries, I really do, but what "avenues" do you expect to "open up" that ideas like the flat earth simply won't allow? People won't accept a text that has this. The Ethiopians? Maybe. For now. But not a modern society magic box or not.

 

I accept that when they wrote it, they believed the earth was flat, just as people thought the earth was flat before we discovered it wasn't. Should I debunk any history wrote that has a reference to the earth being flat?

 

Maybe the angels do roll the sun around, and maybe those windows do open to 'create' the wind