Temple and Gihon Spring sat in the middle of Jerusalem

“In fact, in Josippon ben Gorion’s version of War, he says that from the top of the temple’s east wall, the water in the Kidron Brook could be seen running at one cubit’s distance from the wall”. Marilyn Sams Taken from: https://www.academia.edu/14532171/The_Temple_Mount_in_the_City_of_David_Ancient_Authenticating_Descriptions with a few comments added: The Temple Mount in the City of David: Ancient Authenticating Descriptions by Marilyn Sams Ancient descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple Mount are incompatible with the current identification and location of it in Jerusalem, which is a long-standing tradition only, entirely dependent on the undocumented proposition that during the time of David or Solomon the northern walls of the City of David/Jerusalem were broken down to append a large northerly extension for the temple and acropolis. Instead, ancient descriptions of the boundaries of the City of David/Jerusalem delimit it to the southeastern hill, with no northerly extension added. …. In 1909-1910, Parker and Vincent discovered archaeological remains dated to 3000 B.C. in the Gihon Spring area, affirming the southeastern hill was the original site of the ancient habitations chronicled in the Bible and history (Reich, 2011). In War VI, 10, 438, Josephus mentions an early king of Jerusalem, a contemporary of Abraham: But he who first built it was a potent man among the Canaanites, and is in our own tongue called [Melchizedek], the Righteous King, for such he really was; on which account he was [there] the first priest of God, and first built a temple [there], and called the city Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem. Mackey’s comment: I suspect that Melchizedek’s Salem was in the north, near Shechem, a long way from Jerusalem. Another reference in Josephus states the city “was called Solyma, but afterwards they named it Hiersolyma, calling the temple (hieron) Solyma, which, in the Hebrew tongue means “security” (Antiquities VII, 3, 67, Loeb translation). The translation of this passage indicates an amalgamation of the city’s former name (Salem) and the word for “temple” to create the new name “Hierosolyma” or “Jerusalem,” because of the temple there. Mackey’s comment: Melchizedek, like his contemporary, Abram (Abraham), belonged to the Late Chalcolithic, much earlier than Middle Bronze II. These include the Spring Tower surrounding the Gihon Spring, the Pool Wall guarding the Rock-cut Pool adjacent to it, and the Fortified Passage, which consists of two massive walls forming a path from the Spring and Rock-cut Pool and heading toward the ridge at the top of the slope. These fortifications protected citizens while accessing their major water supply. Reich surmised there was an important fortress at the top of the ridge (Reich, 2011). Since this will be shown to be where Solomon’s temple stood, it also qualifies as the likeliest place for Melchizedek’s temple [sic]. The Uru Salem of Abdi-Heba, in the 14th century B.C. and the later city of Jebus also occupied the southeastern hill (Van der Veen, 2013). In the 10th century B.C., after David conquered Jebus, he renamed it the City of David. Mackey’s comment: As Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had proposed, in Ages in Chaos I (1952), Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim actually belonged to the approximate time of King Ahab of Israel, even later than kings David and Solomon. Abdi-hiba was, in fact, King Jehoram of Judah (Peter James). The northern boundary of the City of David is generally located at Area H of Kathleen Kenyon’s excavations at the bottleneck of the southeastern hill. After Solomon had built the temple and his own house (1 Kings 3:1), “…he made a breach in the wall of the city of David: thus the daughter of Pharoa went up out of the city of David to her house which he built for her” (3 Kings 2:35, Septuagint version). Hence, it is not until after the construction of the temple and Solomon’s palace that an enlargement of the City of David is mentioned, creating what I call the “City of David/Jerusalem.” In Antiquities VII, 3, 66, Josephus states that David made buildings around the “lower city,” which becomes a synonym for the City of David, after the northerly expansion. The northeastern corner of the City of David/Jerusalem (or the Sheep Gate) probably stood where the southeastern corner of the traditional temple mount stands, or possibly 105 feet north, at the “seam” on the east wall. Fig. 2. Boundaries for the City of David/Jerusalem Fig. 2. The City of David is the lower half of the southeastern hill, with its northern boundary at the bottleneck (Area H). The City of David/Jerusalem occupied the whole crescent-shaped southeastern hill. The map outlines the ridge area, but the walls were further down the slopes. A northerly extension of the southeastern hill did not begin, as illustrated here, until about 134 B.C.E. when John Hyrcanus built the Baris, which was expanded to become the 36-acre Haram. To understand there was no northerly appendage added to the southeastern hill, one must start with later descriptions of the City of David/Jerusalem and work back. Although the city had spread to the western hill in Hezekiah’s reign, it shrunk back to the southeastern hill during the Persian era. Even in the Greek era and later, the City of David/Jerusalem is described in the Letter of Aristeas as having its towers arranged “in the manner of a theater;” Tacitus describes its walls as “bending inwards” (Histories 5.11, as cited in Dissertation 3); Josephus said it had “the shape of the moon when she is horned” (War V, 5, 137); and the Venerable Bede compared it to “an arc,” each description of the city referring to the crescent shape of the southeastern hill, without any northerly extension appended. In Antiquities XV, 11, 410, Josephus again uses “in the manner of a theater” to describe the temple lying near to the city, adding that its southern quarter was bounded by a deep valley, both descriptions which refer to the southeastern hill lying against the western hill in the lower Tyropoeon Valley, with the Hinnom and Kidron Valleys on the south and southeast. In addition, Antiquities XV, 11, 397 says: "The hill [of the temple plaza foundations] was a rocky ascent, that declined by degrees towards the east parts of the city, until it came to an elevated level.” This eliminates the traditional site of the temple mount, since there never has been a city built on its east side, as was the case with the temple mount described by Josephus. Several descriptions locating the temple on the southeastern hill derive from its being the lowest mountain in Jerusalem. The Venerable Bede noted the temple [ruins] were located in the “lower part of the city” in the vicinity of the “wall from the east,” Eudocia’s 5th century city wall on the east of the southeastern hill. In Special Laws I.XIII.73, Philo of Alexandria gave a similar topographical description that the temple “…being very large and very lofty, although built in a very low situation…is not inferior to any of the greatest mountains around.” In his letter to Faustus, Eucherius (5th Century C.E.), the Bishop of Lyons, said: “The Temple, which was situated in the lower city near the eastern wall, was once a world wonder, but of its ruins there stands today only the pinnacle of one wall, and the rest are destroyed down to their foundations.” Fig. 4. The Curve of the Southeastern Crescent-Shaped Hill Fig. 4. The photo shows how the southeastern hill is curved or “bending back,” like “a moon when she is horned” or would have had its towers arranged in “the manner of a theater.” The Gihon Spring is where buildings begin south of the very steep slopes. Note that the traditional temple mount’s east wall cannot be considered “within the valley,” as described by Josephus. [Courtesy of Ferrell Jenkins] Further, the Cairo Geniza documents explain that when Omar granted permission to seventy households of Jews to return to Jerusalem, they requested to be near the site of the temple and the water of Shiloah, in the southern section of the city. Mackey’s comment: On (Omar and) the Ummayad caliphate, though, see my article: Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology (6) Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The accounts of the temple ruins standing in the lower city or the temple being built in a low situation or in the south are consistent with Josephus’s descriptions of the temple foundations of the east wall being built deep within the Kidron Valley, not upslope as is the case with the traditional temple mount. In fact, in Josippon ben Gorion’s version of War, he says that from the top of the temple’s east wall, the water in the Kidron Brook could be seen running at one cubit’s distance from the wall. The southeastern hill location of the City of David/Jerusalem is also affirmed by descriptions of both the Gihon Spring and the temple being in the middle of the city. In Contra Apion I, 22, 198, Hecateus of Abdera (4th Century B.C.) mentioned the temple measured 150 feet by 500 feet in the middle of the city. This being the case, a location for the temple on a northerly extension is not possible. Coincidentally, the Jerusalem Talmud says Shiloah was also in the middle of the city (Hagigah 76a). In the Letter of Aristeas, from his standpoint on the citadel, looking down into the temple, he describes upper and lower crossroads, implying the city was bifurcated by the temple. This is also implied by the injunction in the Mishnah (Berachot 9:5) that the temple should not be used as a shortcut. Several scriptures refer to the temple in the “midst” of the city, including Psalm 46:4-5: “There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High God is in the midst of her….” (the river being derived from the waters of the Gihon Spring); Psalm 116:18-19: “I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people, In the courts of the Lord’s house, in the midst of thee, O Jerusalem;” Zechariah 8:3: “Thus saith the Lord; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the Lord of hosts the holy mountain.” Hence, these ancient descriptions verify the city associated with the temple occupied only the southeastern hill.

The return to scientific reality

“Legendary reclusive genius Wolfgang Smith demonstrates on shockingly obvious grounds the dead end at which physics has arrived, and how we can “return, at last, to the real world”. https://philos-sophia.org/about-the-film/ THE END OF QUANTUM REALITY Mathematician-philosopher-physicist extraordinaire Wolfgang Smith has chosen to emerge now, at the summit of his life’s work, in order to prepare a new generation for what he calls “a singular moment in history.” Is the so-called “quantum reality problem” actually the sign that a four-century arc of human history—what René Guénon has called “the reign of quantity”—is reaching its end? From the creative team that brought you The Principle in 2014, The End of Quantum Reality—which also features Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Olavo de Carvalho, and narrator Richard DeLano—is now available on disc and digital streaming. Don’t miss this singular documentary designed to blow the doors off the quantum reality problem, and signal the end of the Reign of Quantity. SYNOPSIS Almost one hundred years ago, the project to reduce the world to mathematical physics failed suddenly and completely: “One of the best-kept secrets of science,” physicist Nick Herbert writes, “is that physicists have lost their grip on reality.” The world, we are now told, emerges spontaneously, out of “nothing,” and constitutes a “multiverse,” where “anything that can happen will happen, and it will happen an infinite number of times.” Legendary reclusive genius Wolfgang Smith demonstrates on shockingly obvious grounds the dead end at which physics has arrived, and how we can “return, at last, to the real world.” The End of Quantum Reality introduces this extraordinary man to a contemporary audience which has, perhaps, never encountered a true philosophos, as intimately at ease with the rigors of quantum physics as with the greatest schools of human wisdom. • “Wolfgang Smith broaches a vast range of subjects with a mastery that bespeaks an immense culture… It would be hard to exaggerate the importance of [his] work.” —Jean Borella, Professor of Philosophy, University of Nancy, France • “Here is that rare person who is equally at home with Eckhart and Einstein, Heraclitus and Heisenberg!” —Harry Oldmeadow, Professor of Philosophy, La Trobe University, Australia • “Wolfgang Smith is as important a thinker as our times boast.” —Huston Smith, Professor of Philosophy, M.I.T., and author of The World’s Religions

Pope Francis and the Vatican cautious about apparitions and weeping statues

“… [Pope] Francis has expressed skepticism about more recent events, including claims of repeated messages from Mary to “seers” at the shrine of Medjugorje, in Bosnia-Herzegovina”. Nicole Winfield On the Medjugorje phenomenon, see my (Damien Mackey’s) articles: Medjugorje and the Mad Mouthings of the ‘Madonna of the Antichrist’ (1) Medjugorje and the Mad Mouthings of the 'Madonna of the Antichrist' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Medjugorje is all about the money (2) Medjugorje is all about the money | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, we read at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-stigmata-statues-pope-medjugorje-b2547725.html Vatican updates rules on weeping statues and stigmata amid fake news fears Apocalyptic prophesies are spreading online faster than ever before, causing confusion among the faithful Nicole Winfield …. Church figures who claimed to have experienced the stigmata wounds have inspired millions of Catholics The Catholic Church has a long and controversial history of the faithful claiming to have had visions of the Virgin Mary, of statues that purportedly wept blood tears and stigmata that erupted on hands mimicking the wounds of Christ. On Friday [17th May, 2024], the Vatican announce[d] new norms to help determine whether and when these seemingly supernatural events are authentic. It’s stepping in amid a boom in claims and concern that apocalyptic prophesies are spreading online faster than ever before, causing confusion among the faithful. When confirmed as authentic by church authorities, these otherwise inexplicable divine signs can lead to a flourishing of the faith, with new religious vocations and conversions. That has been the case for the purported apparitions of Mary that turned Fatima, Portugal and Lourdes, France into enormously popular pilgrimage destinations. Church figures who claimed to have experienced the stigmata wounds, including Padre Pio …have inspired millions of Catholics. …. But the phenomena can also become a source of scandal. That was the case when the Vatican in 2007 excommunicated the members of a Quebec-based group, the Army of Mary, after its foundress claimed to have had Marian visions and declared herself the reincarnation of the mother of Christ. Francis himself has weighed in on the phenomenon, making clear that he is devoted to the main church-approved Marian apparitions, such as … Our Lady of Fatima, who believers say appeared to three illiterate shepherd children in 1917. But Francis has expressed skepticism about more recent events, including claims of repeated messages from Mary to “seers” at the shrine of Medjugorje, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, even while allowing pilgrimages to take place there. “I prefer the Madonna as mother, our mother, and not a woman who’s the head of a telegraphic office, who sends a message every day at a certain time,” Francis told reporters in 2017. On Friday, the Vatican’s doctrinal office will issue a revised set of norms for discerning apparitions “and other supernatural phenomena,” updating a set of guidelines first issued in 1978. Those guidelines largely left it in the hands of the local bishop to investigate purported visions or supernatural events to determine if they were worthy of belief among the faithful, and tended to err on the side of caution. …. The Vatican has generally refrained from intervening, leaving it in the hands of local bishops and offering its approval to fewer than 20 reported apparitions over several centuries, according to Michael O’Neill, who runs the online apparition resource The Miracle Hunter. Last year however, it announced the creation of a special commission, or observatory, within the Pontifical International Marian Academy to study the phenomenon and provide consulting services to bishops. The commission is made up of a scientific committee of experts, including Fastiggi, from a variety of disciplines. Its director, Sister Daniela Del Gaudio, will join the Vatican’s doctrine czar in announcing the new norms at a news conference Friday. The observatory’s mission statement says experts will analyze and interpret apparitions, lacrimations, or weeping statues, stigmata “and other mystical phenomena that are in progress or have already occurred, but are still awaiting a pronouncement of the ecclesiastical authority on their authenticity.” “It is important to provide clarity, because often alleged messages generate confusion, spread anxious apocalyptic scenarios or even accusations against the pope and the church,” said the academy head, the Rev. Stefano Cecchin. There has been no shortage of controversy surrounding reported apparitions or other supernatural phenomena. ….

Mary, Mother of the Church

Pope Francis with an ancient icon of Mary in St. Mary Major Today (20th May, 2024) is the feast-day of Mary, Mother of the Church. How did this come about? We read back in 2018: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-03/pope-institutes-new-celebration-of-mary--mother-of-church.html Pope institutes new celebration of Mary, Mother of Church Pope Francis inserts the Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, into the Roman Calendar on the Monday following Pentecost Sunday. By Devin Watkins Pope Francis has decreed that the ancient devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, under the title of Mother of the Church, be inserted into the Roman Calendar. The liturgical celebration, B. Mariæ Virginis, Ecclesiæ Matris, will be celebrated annually as a Memorial on the day after Pentecost. In a decree released on Saturday by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Robert Sarah, its Prefect, said the Pope’s decision took account of the tradition surrounding the devotion to Mary as Mother of the Church. 03/03/2018 Cardinal Sarah: ‘New Marian memorial aid to Christian life’ He said the Holy Father wishes to promote this devotion in order to “encourage the growth of the maternal sense of the Church in the pastors, religious and faithful, as well as a growth of genuine Marian piety”. ‘Mother of the Church’ in tradition The decree reflects on the history of Marian theology in the Church’s liturgical tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers. It says Saint Augustine and Pope Saint Leo the Great both reflected on the Virgin Mary’s importance in the mystery of Christ. “In fact the former [St. Augustine] says that Mary is the mother of the members of Christ, because with charity she cooperated in the rebirth of the faithful into the Church, while the latter [St. Leo the Great] says that the birth of the Head is also the birth of the body, thus indicating that Mary is at once Mother of Christ, the Son of God, and mother of the members of his Mystical Body, which is the Church.” The decree says these reflections are a result of the “divine motherhood of Mary and from her intimate union in the work of the Redeemer”. Scripture, the decree says, depicts Mary at the foot of the Cross (cf. Jn 19:25). There she became the Mother of the Church when she “accepted her Son’s testament of love and welcomed all people in the person of the beloved disciple as sons and daughters to be reborn unto life eternal.” In 1964, the decree says, Pope Paul VI “declared the Blessed Virgin Mary as ‘Mother of the Church, that is to say of all Christian people, the faithful as well as the pastors, who call her the most loving Mother’ and established that ‘the Mother of God should be further honoured and invoked by the entire Christian people by this tenderest of titles’”. Votive Mass now made a fixed celebration Then, in the Holy Year of Reconciliation in 1975, the Church inserted into the Roman Missal a votive Mass in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church. With the present decree, Pope Francis inserts that celebration into the universal Church’s liturgy as a Memorial on a fixed date. The Congregation for Divine Worship has published the official liturgical texts in Latin. Translations, the decree states, are to be prepared and approved by local Bishops’ Conferences before being confirmed by the Congregation. Please find below the official English-language text of the Decree: Prot. N. 10/18 DECREE on the celebration of the Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of the Church in the General Roman Calendar The joyous veneration given to the Mother of God by the contemporary Church, in light of reflection on the mystery of Christ and on his nature, cannot ignore the figure of a woman (cf. Gal 4:4), the Virgin Mary, who is both the Mother of Christ and Mother of the Church. In some ways this was already present in the mind of the Church from the premonitory words of Saint Augustine and Saint Leo the Great. In fact the former says that Mary is the mother of the members of Christ, because with charity she cooperated in the rebirth of the faithful into the Church, while the latter says that the birth of the Head is also the birth of the body, thus indicating that Mary is at once Mother of Christ, the Son of God, and mother of the members of his Mystical Body, which is the Church. These considerations derive from the divine motherhood of Mary and from her intimate union in the work of the Redeemer, which culminated at the hour of the cross. Indeed, the Mother standing beneath the cross (cf. Jn 19:25), accepted her Son’s testament of love and welcomed all people in the person of the beloved disciple as sons and daughters to be reborn unto life eternal. She thus became the tender Mother of the Church which Christ begot on the cross handing on the Spirit. Christ, in turn, in the beloved disciple, chose all disciples as ministers of his love towards his Mother, entrusting her to them so that they might welcome her with filial affection. As a caring guide to the emerging Church Mary had already begun her mission in the Upper Room, praying with the Apostles while awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:14). In this sense, in the course of the centuries, Christian piety has honoured Mary with various titles, in many ways equivalent, such as Mother of Disciples, of the Faithful, of Believers, of all those who are reborn in Christ; and also as “Mother of the Church” as is used in the texts of spiritual authors as well as in the Magisterium of Popes Benedict XIV and Leo XIII. Thus the foundation is clearly established by which Blessed Paul VI, on 21 November 1964, at the conclusion of the Third Session of the Second Vatican Council, declared the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Mother of the Church, that is to say of all Christian people, the faithful as well as the pastors, who call her the most loving Mother” and established that “the Mother of God should be further honoured and invoked by the entire Christian people by this tenderest of titles”. Therefore the Apostolic See on the occasion of the Holy Year of Reconciliation (1975), proposed a votive Mass in honour of Beata Maria Ecclesiæ Matre, which was subsequently inserted into the Roman Missal. The Holy See also granted the faculty to add the invocation of this title in the Litany of Loreto (1980) and published other formularies in the Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1986). Some countries, dioceses and religious families who petitioned the Holy See were allowed to add this celebration to their particular calendars. Having attentively considered how greatly the promotion of this devotion might encourage the growth of the maternal sense of the Church in the pastors, religious and faithful, as well as a growth of genuine Marian piety, Pope Francis has decreed that the Memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, should be inscribed in the Roman Calendar on the Monday after Pentecost and be now celebrated every year. This celebration will help us to remember that growth in the Christian life must be anchored to the Mystery of the Cross, to the oblation of Christ in the Eucharistic Banquet and to the Mother of the Redeemer and Mother of the Redeemed, the Virgin who makes her offering to God. The Memorial therefore is to appear in all Calendars and liturgical books for the celebration of Mass and of the Liturgy of the Hours. The relative liturgical texts are attached to this decree and their translations, prepared and approved by the Episcopal Conferences, will be published after confirmation by this Dicastery. Where the celebration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, is already celebrated on a day with a higher liturgical rank, approved according to the norm of particular law, in the future it may continue to be celebrated in the same way. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding. From the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 11 February 2018, the memorial of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Lourdes. - Robert Card. Sarah, Prefect - Arthur Roche, Archbishop Secretary

Gospels as direct testimonies

“Here we reach the biggest mystery of today's Christian exegesis — with the exception of Orthodox exegesis: All these discoveries testify that our faith is not in vain, that it rests upon real historic facts and should be welcomed with a relevant enthusiasm; instead, they are met with silence or worse”. Professor Marie-Christine Ceruti-Cendrier Whilst searching for a useful review of Claude Tresmontant’s The Hebrew Christ: Language in the Age of the Gospels (1989), I (Damien Mackey) came across the following terrific article by Professor Marie-Christine Ceruti-Cendrier (2013): http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/(g354)-carmignac&tresmontant.htm JEAN CARMIGNAC & CLAUDE TRESMONTANT Chapter 14 of our booklet provides an outline of the findings of two French researchers. The Association Jean Carmignac promotes their work more fully and details of it are available at the end of this article. Here, Professor Marie-Christine Ceruti-Cendrier, administrator of the Association, examines several reliable dating methodologies which have been used to date the Gospels. She contrasts these with the unreliable literary analysis (form criticism) which is preferred by many modern exegetes. -----0----- Let's be straightforward: I believe the Gospels to be direct testimonies that tell real and non-mythic or symbolic facts. I do not believe it by fideism — not because of my faith — but because I have rational, scientific, carefully researched reasons to do so. Indeed, we who affirm the absolute historicity of the Gospels are now only a small minority. Although this truth of the faith was strongly asserted by the Second Vatican Council and has been believed by millions of Catholics throughout the centuries of Christianity, we nowadays seem to be considered as outsiders. Let's examine here the different aspects of this situation. Should the Supernatural in the Gospels be Simply Denied? The resolution of differences regarding the dating, the origins, the authors, the nature of the Gospels lies in this interrogation: Should they be analyzed in the view of all hypotheses applied to them but one? Should they be treated like any ordinary text for which the authenticity of the facts it contains is usually admitted? Or should they, by exception, be systematically denied what is in them: the supernatural (even when all other explanations have failed)? Three Reliable Ways to Establish the Authenticity of a Document Usually, scientists studying a written document they want to date have a choice of three courses of action at their disposal. They first (A) can look for the period of time to which the paper, the parchment, the ink, the shape of the writing belong, all of which underpin the text and can be analyzed through chemistry, paleography, papyrology, etc. . . . They also can turn their inquiry towards (B) the language, the dialect, the style, the expression, i.e., philology, linguistics; and thirdly (C) they can rely on clues helping to locate the period of time when the work was written. For example, any reference to steam engines, to the way of harnessing a horse, to a well-known historic event. All these help the search. Obviously none of the three methods excludes the others. Using these three methods, scholars followed the footprints of the Gospels and collected a rich harvest of facts that confirmed their historicity. A Fourth Way; But is it Reliable? But most of the exegetes preferred a fourth way, in which a work is dated through its literary content, i.e., in more simple terms according to the subject of the story. Let's not forget this has nothing to do with the style, the vocabulary or the expression, but states that the larger the quantity of supernatural the text contains the older it is; the more philosophical and intellectual it proves to be the recent it is; and the shorter and thinner it is the more archaic it is, the accumulation of time having perhaps piled up new layers to enrich the story. The Gospels and Extra-Biblical History It is time here to give a few important details. The oldest Gospels that reached us are written in Greek, the international language during Christ's time. In the Holy Land the commonly spoken language was Aramaic and the sacred language was Hebrew — some specialists are convinced Hebrew was also spoken, while others think it was only written, but this does not matter. In any case, these languages are very similar. In A.D. 70 an event occurred that, in both human and religious terms, has been considered most loathsome by Jews ever since that time: the fall and destruction of the Temple and the City of Jerusalem by the Romans. Most of its inhabitants were killed; the rest were deported or scattered. Had the Gospels been written in Greek, it could have been at any time. If, on the other hand, their first redaction (before being translated to Greek) had been written in a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic) it should date — and this is very important — from before 70, as after this date using these languages would have been useless or dangerous. If even one of the Gospels had been written before 70, the witnesses of Christ's life, miracles, death and Resurrection being still alive would guarantee the authenticity of the account. They indeed would not have let the deception go on if the facts supposed to have happened among them (Luke 1:1) had not taken place. On the other hand, if those four Gospels originated after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, all possible oversights, mistakes, forgeries (even well intended), intended additions or omissions may be considered. That is why the exegetes' discussion on both the date and the original language of the Gospels prove so contentious. On these issues depend, indirectly but certainly, the degree of trust the Gospels can be granted. Evidence Based on Archaeology and Papyrology Let's go back to the results of the archaeological or philological "excavations" and the hunt for clues that have proved so fruitful to the supporters of historicity and early dating (before or well before 70). Let's first consider (A). Which documents did survive? Some 25 years ago, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan, S.J. identified a papyrus written in Greek which was found in the cave Number 7 in Qumran, the "7Q5," as being a fragment of St. Mark's Gospel (6:52-53) and another papyrus from the same cave as being a fragment of 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 4:1b). Nobody supporting the late dating has ever credibly questioned the fact that these caves were closed in 68 A.D., dating therefore their content from earlier than this date. Beside these manuscripts lay their container: a broken jar bearing the letters RWM which, according to the well-known Hebraist J.A. Fitzmyer, represent the City of Rome and were clumsily written by a Jew at the time. It has been observed in the other Qumran caves that a name written on a jar meant its provenance and/or to whom it belonged. St. Irenaeus, disciple of St. Polycarp who was himself a disciple of Christ's Apostles, stated in his Against Heresies (III,1,1) that St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome. Therefore the Dead Sea Manuscripts support tradition and early dating. The first reaction of theologians was to hide this discovery and not tell anything about it, but when, twenty years later, the German Protestant papyrologist Carsten P. Thiede brought the manuscript out and declared it to be authentic in The Earliest Gospel Manuscript, (Paternoster Press, 1992), the outcry against its authenticity was enormous. Mackey’s comment: For more, see my articles: Carsten Peter Thiede on dating of New Testament (2) Carsten Peter Thiede on dating of New Testament | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Carsten Peter Thiede has discovered the true site of Luke’s Emmaus (2) Carsten Peter Thiede has discovered the true site of Luke's Emmaus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Professor Ceruti-Cendrier continues: Meanwhile a scientific symposium on 7Q5 took place in Eichstatt in Bavaria in 1991 and confirmed the coincidence of its text with Mark 6:52-53. Several eminent papyrologists like H. Hunger, S. Darius and Orsolina Montevecchi (Honorary President of the International Association of Papyrologists) agreed to date this papyrus in 50; twenty years, at most, after the Resurrection. However a great majority of the exegetes still disagree. Let's add that Carsten P. Thiede (RIP 2004) — an internationally known papyrologist — in Jesus according to Matthew, has since studied three small fragments coming from one codex. The fragments had been donated to Oxford's Magdalen College and display various phrases from St. Matthew's Gospel. Having analyzed them he [is] convinced that this papyrus did not appear after 70 but probably around 50. Philologists Affirm Early Dates of Origin of the Gospels Concerning the philological research (B), two specialists thoroughly analyzed the language of the Gospels: Fr. Jean Carmignac, one of the greatest experts in biblical studies in the world, and recognized as foremost in the knowledge of the Qumran Hebrew (of Jesus' times), and Claude Tresmontant lecturer for the Institut de France who taught for a long time in the Sorbonne University. Mackey’s comment: For more, see my article: Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early (3) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Professor Ceruti-Cendrier continues: Tresmontant is the author of an Old Testament Hebrew-to-Greek (Septuagint) dictionary. (The Septuagint was translated in the third — second century B.C.) They both demonstrated that the Greek language used in the Gospels (all four of them for Tresmontant, the three Synoptic ones for Carmignac who did not consider St. John's) was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic. They both consider the whole of the Gospels (excluding the Preface to St. Luke's) and not just fragments introduced into a Greek text. They both provide tens (may be hundreds) of proofs. Fr. Carmignac, in La Naissance des Evangiles Synoptiques, points out Semitisms of thought, vocabulary, syntax, style, composition, transmission, translation and even multiple Semitisms. For each case, he supplies many examples. As for Tresmontant's demonstration, let's just give a few samples of it: In Luke 9:51, the Greek text reads: "He fixed his face to go to Jerusalem," which makes no sense in Greek or in English but proves to be a Hebrew expression frequently used in the Old Testament meaning "He firmly decided." Tresmontant gives many such examples and idiomatic expressions. He also points out the following passage in St. John (5:2) — St. John's text being regarded as the latest, most scholars dating it from the very end of the 1st century — "There is in Jerusalem, next to the Ewes Gate a pool called Bezatha". Why would the present tense be used if the city had not existed for a long time? And what about Matt. 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 19:41-44, etc., in which Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem? (Many "late-date" exegetes doubt that Jesus made this prediction.) How is it that the Evangelists — or at least one of the Evangelists — have not specified, if the city was already destroyed, that this so-called prophecy was in fact achieved? "A discreet and shy forger" as Tresmontant ironically puts it. Let's by the way observe J.A.T. Robinson, an Anglican exegete, who was perfectly convinced of the non-historicity of the Gospels, until he noted this complete absence of reference to the end of Jerusalem as an already accomplished historical fact. He declared therefore the impossibility of dating the Gospels later than 70. Carmignac also explains a few "nonsenses" found in the Gospels: in Mark 5:13 the reference to a herd of about two thousand pigs has been generally regarded as a mythical construction (gathering two thousand pigs being virtually impossible). But Fr. Carmignac explains that in Hebrew only consonants are written and the same word differently pronounced acquires a different meaning. The written Hebrew word for "about two thousand," if read with other vowels, means "by packs." So "The herd jumped from the cliff into the sea by packs." The Hebrew underpinning the text makes it clear and probable while proving its own presence. Fr. Carmignac gives many more such examples and even explains some of the apparent discrepancies in some Gospels compared to others. As he translated the Synoptic Gospels from Greek to Qumran Hebrew, he stated quite firmly that they had first been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, then in Greek, so easily had he accomplished this translation. Many other philologists also uncovered the way the Semitic language underpins the Greek language used in the Gospels. Fr. Carmignac noted many of them in the past. Since I published my book, several people wrote to me indicating contemporary philologists who had made similar discoveries. However, I have been unable to find their writings. They have not been published in books or journals. It has been said that publishers do not even reply to these authors. They are not mentioned on television or radio programs or in the print media. It seems that few philologists have heard of them and that those who have remain silent about them. Other Indications of Sound, Early-Date Biblical Historicity Let's come to (C). Nearly every day new clues are found indicating that the Gospels were originally written close to the time of Jesus. As noted above, based largely on speculation, many exegetes continue to assert that the Gospels were written after A.D. 70 by authors who never knew Jesus, any of the Apostles or any other eyewitnesses to Jesus. However, it seems impossible that any such late-date author could write without making mistakes on the location, the animals, the plants, the sharing of powers, the various sects and other minute details by which archaeological excavation confirm that the Evangelists were stating the truth. The absence of such errors strongly indicates that the Gospels were written close to the time of Jesus. Vittorio Messori, in his books Hypotheses sur Jesus and Il a souffert sous Ponce Pilate, gives many examples confirming this matter. Here are just a few: (a) In 1968, archaeologists commissioned by the Israeli Government excavated in Giv'at ha Mitvar, north of Jerusalem, the remains of a young man, five and one-half feet tall, dating from the 1st century, who had been crucified and whose tibiae had been broken. (b) A stone found a few years ago, notifying non-Jews that they were not allowed inside the temple reserved to the Jews, is written in the same three languages as the placard hung to the cross: Hebrew, Latin and Greek. And (c) A family grave dating back to Jesus' time was uncovered in a graveyard where leading citizens were buried. It contained the remains of a certain Simon of Cyrene's parents. Could this be mere coincidence? Madame Genot-Bismuth, a non-Christian Professor of Ancient and Medieval Judaism in the Sorbonne-Nouvelle University (Paris), is positive that the person who wrote St. John's Gospel was a direct witness of his account as the details he gives fit so exactly with the results of her own archaeological excavations in Jerusalem. There are also all sorts of comforting hints. Fr. Pierre Courouble revealed that Pilate speaks Greek in St. John's Gospel (18:29 and 19:22) as a foreigner, making mistakes and Latinisms, whereas the remainder of the Gospel is grammatically perfect. Who would have remembered this long after the facts? (It is equally possible that Pilate's original sentences in bad Greek appeared as such in an original Semitic text.) On another matter, why does St. Mark tell us that Jesus, during the storm he is about to calm, was inside the stern, sleeping on the cushion" and not "at the stern" (where he would have interfered with the maneuvering of the boat)? The answer was found when the wreck of a boat of Jesus' time was discovered in the Genesareth Lake in 1986 showing on its rear deck a covered shelter in which a man could lie (Bonnet-Eymard). Gino Zaninotto, a teacher and specialist of ancient languages, provided a list of codices indicating that St. Matthew's Gospel was written eight years after the Ascension of the Lord; St. Mark's, eleven years; St. Luke's, fifteen years; and St. John's, thirty-two years after the same event. The oldest of these codices dates from the 9th century and, according to Michel van Esbroeck from Munich University, the source of this information might be still older. From where do these precious dates come? Why were they disclosed in 836 during the Synod of Jerusalem attended by the three Melchite Patriarchs from Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem? Why has this research field been so far ignored? Here we reach the biggest mystery of today's Christian exegesis — with the exception of Orthodox exegesis: All these discoveries testify that our faith is not in vain, that it rests upon real historic facts and should be welcomed with a relevant enthusiasm; instead, they are met with silence or worse. Giulio Firpo, professor at Chieti University (Italy), undertook an exceptional investigation of the Gospels of Christ's childhood. He studied hundreds of documents such as writings from Antiquity and from modern times, inscriptions, coins and various papyruses. Based on Firpo's findings, we can be quite confident that the Gospel accounts of Christ's childhood are authentic. For instance, who knows nowadays that there were numerous censuses at the end of the 1st century B.C.? But who has heard of this extraordinary scholar's book Il problema cronologico della nascita di Gesu. [The chronological problem of Jesus' birth]? Why has it not been published in English and other languages? A Catholic University Denies Scholars Access to Early-Date Evidence Fr. Carmignac left all his writings to the Institut Catholique de Paris by will, comprising sixteen boxes full of manuscripts and documents together with their inventory and classification. After his death they were brought to this university by his secretary, Mlle. Demanche. Nobody asking for it has been allowed to consult these archives and Fr. Carmignac's publisher, M. de Guibert, has not been allowed to publish his posthumous works. The successful Italian weekly magazine Il Sabato made this story public with Thiede's discoveries and the ensuing polemics. Strangely enough, it closed down a little later. The direction and philosophical orientation of the international monthly magazine Thirty Days, that was publishing the same articles, changed at the same time. Mackey’s comment: For more on this scandalous situation, see my article: Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early. Part Two: Institut Catholique de Paris ignores Carmignac (3) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (3) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early. Part Two: Institut Catholique de Paris ignores Carmignac | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Evidence found of the Temple of Yahweh that King Solomon built in Jerusalem

“[Eli] Shukron led us about forty feet underground into the well-secured area. …. The site has grooves cut into that bedrock for an olive press and sacrifice tables, and loops cut into the walls presumably to secure animals. Slightly uphill and to the left of the olive press is a long channel cut into the floor most likely designed to drain off blood”. Dr. Frank Turek Dr. Frank Turek has given a dramatic, and optimistic, title to his 2014 article: https://crossexamined.org/jewish-temple-may-prevent-world-war-iii/ WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014 THE JEWISH TEMPLE THAT MAY PREVENT WORLD WAR III • By Frank Turek |Israel is the most contested piece of real estate in the world. And the most contested piece of real estate within Israel is the temple mount in the old city of Jerusalem. Nearly every Jew believes that the Muslim Dome of the Rock, which dominates that thirty-six acre site, sits on the spot of all previous Jewish Temples, including the last one destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Some Jews and Christians believe that the temple must be and will be rebuilt on that spot. Therein lies the problem. Can you think of a faster way to start World War III? Thankfully, new evidence is just coming to light that might reveal a more peaceful solution. The Jewish Temple may not have been on the Temple Mount but just outside the current walls of the old city. I had the privilege of seeing this evidence several days ago along with a few others participating on our CrossExamined.org trip to Israel. Our guide was the man who uncovered the new evidence: Israeli archaeologist Eli Shukron. Since 1995, Shukron has been digging up the twelve-acre area called the City of David that [just] out from the southern wall of the old city of Jerusalem. He and his team have removed thousands of tones [sic] of dirt to discover, among other things, the Pool of Siloam where Jesus healed a blind person (John 9:7), and the once impenetrable fortress of the Jebusites that David and his men captured by sneaking up an underground water shaft (2 Sam 5:7-8). Near that water shaft, about 1,000 feet south of the Temple Mount, Shukron discovered the remains of an ancient temple just a few feet from the Gihon Spring. Shukron led us about forty feet underground into the well-secured area. As the lead archaeologist, only he has the key. The excavated area is down to bedrock, which means there was no civilization below it. The site has grooves cut into that bedrock for an olive press and sacrifice tables, and loops cut into the walls presumably to secure animals. Slightly uphill and to the left of the olive press is a long channel cut into the floor most likely designed to drain off blood. Behind it Shukron unlocked a steel box he had built to protect something on the floor. As he swung the doors open, we saw an ancient upright stone (called a “stele”) surrounded by a foundation of smaller stones. “The Bible says Jacob took a stone and put small stones around it, and then put olive oil on top of that stone.” Shukron told me, referring to the stele Jacob erected in the town of Bethel (Genesis 28:18). “It is a connection between Jacob and God—the relationship between them.” Indeed, Jacob called the place he made, “God’s house.” The Jews were known to set up stele to commemorate interactions with God (Gen. 28:18, 31:45, 35:14, Josh. 24:26, 1 Sam. 8:12). But according to Shukron, the stele he discovered is the only one ever found in Jerusalem. Could it mark the actual site of the real Jewish temple—God’s house? “It certainly was a temple from the first temple period (circa 970-586 B.C.),” Shukron said. “But Solomon’s temple was on the Temple Mount.” When I asked him what archeological evidence exists for the Temple Mount site, he offered very little in response. Perhaps the paucity of evidence is due to the political realities that prevent much digging there. On the other hand, quite a compelling case can be made for Solomon’s Temple being at Shukron’s site. My co-host on the trip, Bob Cornuke, makes that case in a fascinating new book called Temple: Amazing New Discoveries that Change Everything About the Location of Solomon’s Temple. Cornuke picks up on the research of the late archaeologist, Ernest L. Martin, who in 1997 suggested that the biblical text and eyewitness evidence from the first century all point to the City of David as the actual temple location. Now there appears to be quite specific archaeological evidence as well. Cornuke and Shukron have been discussing this evidence for the better part of the last year. There are even a couple of pictures in Cornuke’s book from Shukron’s site. You can see those pictures and some of my own here. So why isn’t Shukron suggesting his site is where the temple was? If true, it would be the greatest archaeological discovery of all time! I had dinner with Eli, Bob and a couple of others to discuss that question. First, there is the weight of the consensus site. If the true site is actually in the City of David, just how did the Temple Mount become the dominant site in the first place? Cornuke provides some plausible historical answers in his book. He also shows the text of the Bible and other historical witnesses seem to point to the City of David. Nevertheless, maybe the general consensus in favor of the Temple Mount is correct. Second, as a noted Israeli archaeologist, Shukron would need to evaluate more of the evidence and the opinions of his colleagues before he would ever entertain making a shift on such a monumental question. The Temple Mount is so entrenched in tradition, politics, and Jewish identity—the Western Wall being the holiest Jewish site for prayer—that any shift in opinion would be met with great resistance. It’s not a shift one should make overnight. However, Shukron is open to the possibility. He told us that the location of the Temple is certainly a topic worthy of debate. That debate could be ratcheted up when he presents his findings to a group of archaeologists at a conference in Jerusalem at the end of July. If it’s not Solomon’s Temple, then whose Temple did Shukron discover? When I asked him that question, he just said, “we’ll see.” ….

Divine Mercy Sunday

“On that day are opened all the divine floodgates through which graces flow. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. My mercy is so great that no mind, be it of man or of angel, will be able to fathom it throughout all eternity”. Jesus Divine Mercy https://www.thedivinemercy.org/celebrate/greatgrace/dms What is Divine Mercy Sunday? Find out the basics. In a series of revelations to St. Maria Faustina Kowalska in the 1930s, our Lord called for a special feast day to be celebrated on the Sunday after Easter. Today, we know that feast as Divine Mercy Sunday, named by Pope St. John Paul II at the canonization of St. Faustina on April 30, 2000. The Lord expressed His will with regard to this feast in His very first revelation to St. Faustina. The most comprehensive revelation can be found in her Diary entry 699: My daughter, tell the whole world about My inconceivable mercy. I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and a shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners. On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment. On that day are opened all the divine floodgates through which graces flow. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. My mercy is so great that no mind, be it of man or of angel, will be able to fathom it throughout all eternity. Everything that exists has come from the very depths of My most tender mercy. Every soul in its relation to Me will contemplate My love and mercy throughout eternity. The Feast of Mercy emerged from My very depths of tenderness. It is My desire that it be solemnly celebrated on the first Sunday after Easter. Mankind will not have peace until it turns to the Fount of My mercy. In all, St. Faustina recorded 14 revelations from Jesus concerning His desire for this feast. Nevertheless, Divine Mercy Sunday is NOT a feast based solely on St. Faustina's revelations. Indeed, it is not primarily about St. Faustina — nor is it altogether a new feast. The Second Sunday of Easter was already a solemnity as the Octave Day of Easter[1]. The title "Divine Mercy Sunday" does, however, highlight the meaning of the day. …. ________________________________________