Holy Jerusalem
Here is a little thought experiment. Imagine that both the Islamic world and the Palestinian nation suddenly agreed that the mosques on the Noble Sanctuary in Jerusalem's old city were not that holy after all; that the Jews were welcome to take them down and build a temple if they wanted to. Could Jews really want this? Okay, forget the animal sacrifices. I mean a temple that, whatever its rites, purports to be ground zero of divinity, the building of buildings on the spot of spots--the here and now of a holy of holies. If Jews believed in such things would they be practicing Judaism at all?
This is not a merely hypothetical question. Very few Jews speak seriously about rebuilding the temple in question, but very many--perhaps a majority--are deadly serious about the divinity of the mount in question. From the mayor on down, ordinary Jews in this city seem overwhelmed by the mount's gravitational pull. Close, it is said, matters only when playing at horseshoes, but close also matters greatly when playing at Jerusalem. Most reject out of hand any notion of surrendering Israeli sovereignty over the mount. They think next to nothing (to take just one example) of leveling the Arab neighborhood of Silwan in order to build a kind of biblical theme park close to the mount. Even secular writers say casuistic things like "there is no Zionism without Zion," Zion being the mount overlooking the mount. (In fact, the original halutzim, and Zionism's Emerson, Achad Haam, avoided the place, but never mind.)
JUST TO BE clear, I am not speaking here about "holy" in the garden-variety sense of being understandably valued, sacred in the way your dead father's tallis is sacred, or even possessing what Walter Benjamin called "aura." I don't mean a very, very important place of prayer, a place of utmost authenticity, a place whose stones and contours organize a collective experience that harkens back to a cherished remembered experience. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is holy for Christians in this sense: they don't know where Christ was actually crucified, but they know (as Mark Twain writes) where others before them acted as if they knew. It is good enough for pilgrims to follow in the footsteps of pilgrims.
Indeed, the Noble Sanctuary, whose gorgeous mosques still call the faithful to prayer, is holy even to vaguely secular Muslims in just this sense. Who knows exactly where Mohammed ascended to heaven? Nobody. But all know where generations since the 7th. century ascended to pray. Similarly, the Wailing Wall (whose sovereignty is not in dispute) is "holy" for most every Jew. The night my son was born, in June 1973, I myself cradled my head in its stones and shared my joy with my deceased parents. But I did not do so because I thought I was close to the destroyed ancient arc of the covenant. Rather, I thought I was close to the ghosts of the many Jews who had wept there before me, nursing their losses and mysterious hopes.
Anyway, Jews who claim the Temple Mount today mean holy in a more muscular sense than this. Their Psalmist's Hebrew often sounds like a mental straight-jacket. They imply that the soil of the mount carries traces of God's existence, like basements carry radon. They mean holy in the take-off-your-sandals sense of the word: objectively dangerous, not subjectively poignant. They mean something they are prepared to take on the whole world for, fight and die (and kill) for. Is this Judaism?
MY WIFE SIDRA DeKoven Ezrahi writes more eloquently about these matters than I can here. But even on their surface, her answers make you wonder where traditional Judaism has disappeared to, and how crazed Jerusalem is making its inhabitants. For Judaism, Sidra explains, has always been a religion of distance from the divine, a religion of substitutions. The synagogue is a mikdash m'at, a little temple, that stands-in for the place that is gone, the way debate over Jewish law stands-in for a divine intention, and the Torah stands-in for a God that--so the Torah says--cannot be seen face to face. To put things simply, perhaps a little melodramatically, if the ancient temple were to magically appear, Jews--who are, after all, not just ancient Judeans--would have to destroy it themselves, much the way they would have to break idols and reject a man who claimed to be God.
The Wailing Wall, insofar as it is a kind of synagogue, has something authentic for traditional Jews, she concedes, but not really because of where it is. The wall gestures, like all synagogues only more so, toward what is missing (as does the golden-domed Mosque of Omar, ironically). The wall suggests the supersession of a form of worship which has been long abandoned, and was challenged by Pharisees even in its time--abandoned for good (Hegel might say cunning) reasons that Roman centurions could hardly understand when they tore the temple down: a self-perpetuating priesthood, a hierarchy of fetishists, a sacrificial cult, a comic understanding of sin.
Sidra insists that, after the temple was destroyed, Jews were left, not with divine places or stuff, but only metaphor (God is like this, God is like that). This invitation to poetic innovation engendered our talent for freedom. The Wailing Wall's holiness depends on the Temple Mount being bare of anything meaningful to Jews except for the reminder of the immensity of absence itself. The wall is the evocative symbol (in a religion of symbols) of what is no longer there and, by itself, no longer evocative.
Nor does one have to be a Jew to grasp Sidra's point. My friend Jim Carroll was once asked if his faith in the Resurrection would be shaken if the bones of Jesus were found. No, he said, and he meant pretty much the same thing. Perhaps the most beautiful contemporary work I have seen about the supersession Sidra is talking about is Denys Arcand's Jesus of Montreal. (Trust me: see the film and you'll understand.)
In any case, something new is happening in this city, and it isn't either the Judaism I knew as a child or a return to an ancient practice. It is a hybrid politicized religion, if that's the word; a new claim of return, much like Mussolini's claim to return to Rome; a claim carried by ward-of-the-state orthodox families averaging seven children each, reinforced by neo-Zionist devotion to settlement, and a deep sense of grievance over a more recent destruction of European life, what Sidra calls Judaism's new "ruined shrines."
Make no mistake: the people who wish this new Jerusalem to rise will not be talked out of their goals, certainly not by speeches or editorials (or bloggers). The only hope is that what's left of Israel's secular majority will be pushed, and supported, by what's left of the West to stop them. One more generation, I am tempted to say, and it will be too late. But nothing is ever too late for this benighted, beautiful city, which thrives on the hubris of every conqueror.
All three religions have fought and shed blood for centuries over control of that city they claim is the holiest on earth. If they truly believed that this piece of land was imbued with traces of God, with his spirit and power, they'd be down on their knees washing the streets of the blood they've shed and begging his forgiveness and mercy. They would be thrilled and grateful and overcome with love for each other everytime someone built a shrine to their God whom they all claim is the one true God. Instead they've spent centuries killing and fighting each other over who has the better god and who deserves that pile of rocks more.
Ignorant, jealous, superstitious clods, incapable of being happy for each other and happy in their own beliefs.
June 3, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do people who are anti-religious always condescend how to practice on those that are?
June 3, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes no sense.
June 3, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
ugh, you are soooo much better than all Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Sitting on your high horse judging everybody of three religions to be "Ignorant, jealous, superstitious clods"
what a fine human you are, hope you have lots of intolerant kids to fix these type of problems of intolerance
June 4, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bev is right, Cap'n, and your judging of her is superfluous and very sad - because you don't understand even the basics of what she is talking about.
That's the problem.
June 4, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are wrong, I understand this quite well. I have spent much of my life learning about the complexities of politics and religion in the Middle East. I spent 7 weeks in Israel, talking to Jews, Christians, Bedouins, and Muslims there about this type of stuff. You obviously do not know me, or my level of experience or knowledge. That is beside the point, though.
Painting with such a broad brush, as Bev did is ridiculous. Bev's whole comment was offensive, pretentiously telling people "if they really believed" they would do such-and-such. This insinuates that people don't really believe things, which is a bad generalization, and patently offensive, resorting to ugly insults at the end for good measure, insuring people would be offended.
If religious views are anathema to somebody because they think religion is narrow-minded, and the belief that one's own value system is the one-and-only truth, I understand those views, and sympathize; However, it is rather hypocritial to elevate their own atheism to the same status that they are criticizing. It is a self-defeating argument.
I understand the argument that Religion is stupid, because everybody thinks they are better than everybody else, and they possess the sole key to getting into heaven or whatever. I have seen George Carlin's invisible man in the sky, etc. I even share a lot of those sentiments. But atheism is just as much of a religion as any other, and claiming that people who believe in God are all ignorant, jealous, etc adds nothing to this blog, or discourse in general.
In case this isn't obvious, not all people who believe Jerusalem is holy have shed blood.
In addition, calling the Temple Mount a "pile of rocks" is ignorant, and ignorance is what Bev was pretending to get all worked up about. If you have ever been to Jerusalem, you would know that description is absurd.
I am pretty much on Bev's side, but her language will not convince anybody who disagrees. It does not help resolve the deep divides that exist. I think that as long as there are three distinct religions, that there will not be "Peace in the Middle East". That is despite of the majorities of people wanting peace, and willing to accept two-state solutions they view as concessions. It is because of the actions of the few elite politicians, and extremists, not because of all of the followers of these religions.
June 4, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allow me to pick up on one point of fact rather than dispute Avishai's ideological points. He writes: "Similarly, the Wailing Wall (whose sovereignty is not in dispute)". Really?
Let's ignore Arafat's refusal to recognize the past existence of a Temple at Moriah - which would mean the Kotel is bereft of any significance. But Arafat did orient himself not only on Islamic exclusivism of any Jewish link to "Palestine" but on this document: REPORT
of the Commission appointed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the approval of the Council of the League of Nations, to determine the rights and claims of Moslems and Jews in connection with the Western or Wailing Wall at Jerusalem, December, 1930
As I have explained (http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2007/10/first-report-and-then-comment-adviser.html), not only do the Pals. reject any Jewishness in a religious sense, but the Jewish nationalism that extends from that. Avishai could not only cradle his head in the Wall's stones, he could even bang it against them for all it would help his approach to the hostility, antagonism and outright negation the Pals. possess towards any form of Zionism and anything to do with non-Islamic sovereignty over the Kotel.
And that's a fact.
June 3, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you consider yourself a serious person?
If so, you might use adult language: They are called "Palestinians," not "Pals."
The fact you not embarrassed to use such a derogatory term speaks volumes.
June 3, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
mythbuster wrote:
>Do you consider yourself a serious person?
Yes. Let me guess, you think you're serious too, right?
>If so, you might use adult language:
"Adult" by me means gross, dirty, uncouth, filthy and raunchy. I did none of that.
>They are called "Palestinians," not "Pals."
They may be called "Palestinians" by you and others. I call them "Arabs". If you mean there is a separate nation called Palestinians, I don't agree. I could never figure out how the Palestine Mandate devolved into three supposedly distinct national groupings of Arabs: Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians.
>The fact you not embarrassed to use such a >derogatory term speaks volumes.
No, I'm not embarrassed. Why? They call me and all other Jews pigs, monkey and worse.
For example, in a weekly sermon in April 2002, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." and In a sermon at the Said Al-Jandoul mosque in Al-Taif, Saudi sheikh Ba'd bin Abdallah Al-Ajameh Al-Ghamidi explained that "the qualities of the Jews" were present at all times and in all places: "The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places... is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam – which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam." see here for loads more
and just three weeks ago, this report: Sheikh Ahmed Ali Othman, supervisor of the Da'awa [Islamic Indoctrination] of the Egyptian Waqf [Islamic Holy places], has issued a Religious Ruling (Fatwa) that pigs in our time have their origins in Jews who angered Allah, such that He turned them into monkeys, pigs, and Satan-worshippers, and it is obligatory to kill and slaughter them [the pigs].
Othman based his ruling on the respected Quranic verse, 'Say [to the People of the Book - Jews and Christians], Come and I shall make known to you who receives the worst retribution of all from Allah: those whom Allah has cursed and upon whom He has poured His wrath, whom He has made into monkeys and pigs, and who have served abominations. Their place is worst of all, and their deviation is the greatest of all...' (Quran, sura 5, verse 60)
Sheikh Othman noted that this verse concerning the nation of the prophet Moses descended [from Allah to the Quran], and the books of commentary confirm this. There are two opinions among the Ulama [Islamic scholars] in this regard: The first is that the Jews, whom Allah transformed and turned into pigs, remained in that state until they died, without producing descendants. The other opinion is that the Jews who turned into pigs multiplied and produced descendants, and their line continues to this day. Sheikh Othman also cited Hadiths (traditions attributed to Muhammad) as support...
Pals. is a diminutive. I think it's a clever application of a semi-pun.
Oh, and I hope I didn't bust too many of the myths you hold about Muslims.
June 4, 2009 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If if you find the behavior of the "Pals" so repugnant, why are you mimicking it?
June 4, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mimicking? I haven't killed my daughter for "honor". I have one wife. I haven't committed an act of terror nor even one of suicide bombing. I haven't raped any Arab women (as was done in Hebron in 1834 during the Revolt of the Fellahim to more than half the Jewesses there - 1834 not 1929, that's another behaviorial patter, pogrom, I don't mimick).
What are you babbling about?
June 5, 2009 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's try that link again: here.
June 3, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Muslims do not think Jerusalem is the holiest city on Earth—it's Mecca. Jerusalem is third. The place of Jerusalem in Christianity is arguably in a tie for number one: this was where Jesus was crucified, but other significant events in his life happened elsewhere. In any event, the specific area of the Temple Mount is less important in Christian tradition than the Church of the Holy Sepulcher etc.
Christian tradition wanted the Temple to remain in ruins because the Church fathers felt it was what Jesus said would happen. When the Roman emperor Julian left Christianity and reverted to paganism, he began rebuilding the Temple. After he died, the Christian emperor that succeeded him put a stop to it. It was all purely political.
Second, why forget the animal sacrifices? The Samaritans, whose temple is on Mt. Gerizim, continue to practice it to this day. It looks like a barbeque. Is it somehow too bloody for you because you buy your meat at the supermarket?
My denomination's prayer book, the Reform, the most numerous group in the US, has taken out the call for the restoration of the Temple out. But for the same reason I don't think we should forcibly convert anyone, I don't think those who wish for the restoration of the Temple Service should be dismissed just because their religion, or denomination, is different than mine.
The Islamic shrines on the Temple Mount were put there as a symbol of Islam's brand of supersessionism over Judaism, just as the Christian religion claims to be the "true Israel." In that sense, their claim to the Temple Mount is political, always has been, and is only veiled in religious garb. American Jews aren't afraid to call out the Christians when they do this, or, at least we're less timid.
I believe there is room for a Jewish holy site on the Temple Mount and preventing there from being one fuels a lot of what you complain about. It doesn't mean you tear down al-aqsa or the dome of the rock.
It also doesn't mean that I have to send them a shekel every year or a goat for sacrifice. But I'm not going to stop others if they want to.
June 3, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, as I am a Cohen, do you suppose I am giving up too casually on all of those prime cuts? As for phrases like "most holy city on earth," spare me the lesson. My point was, precisely, that competitions of this kind are an embarrassment. What we need is the capacity to enjoy our existing places of worship without fetishistic ideas about the real estate.
June 3, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You write: "As for phrases like "most holy city on earth," spare me the lesson. My point was, precisely, that competitions of this kind are an embarrassment. What we need is the capacity to enjoy our existing places of worship without fetishistic ideas about the real estate."
Let me make you a compromise suggestion: let's ignore religion and houses of worship (obviously, Islamic houses of worship on Mt. Moriah don't bother you; it's only when Jews get uppity and make counter-claims that certain Jews then seek to downplay their own ethno-religious identity and the worth and value of their traditions, customs and heritage but, we'll let that be) although my idea for a synagogue there would be to close off a small section of the collonnaded section along the west wall of the Haram, break through a small doorway from the Mahkamah building [next the Kotel on the left above where the Border Police station is], close off with a wall with large perspex windows for our view from the inside and to protect from stone throwers outside. But let's ignore Judaism in the meantime.
Can you assist me, Bernard, to halt the Waqf's activities of destroying, elimination and doing away with all Jewish artifacts within the compound? Get them to stop throwing things away? Allow a small arcehological survey to determine what's there, where the Temple precincts were, etc.? This is all scientific and secular, no? After all, look what the world did when the Taliban blew up stone Buddhas in Pakistan, getting all upset. We Jews don't deserve the same treatment of heritage preservation? We all, you would imply, have to kowtow to your wife's analysis of Jewish religion vis-a-vis Jerusalem?
What about it?
June 4, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe there is room for a Jewish holy site on the Temple Mount . . . .
Don't we need a red heifer, first?
I get so confused.
June 3, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a lot that can be done at the present without a Temple or sacrifices and so the Red Heifer is a red herring.
Here's one summary:
Many authorities have ruled on the basis of the Talmud and the Rambam that it is still forbidden for a Jew to enter the Temple Mount today. In the words of the Rambam, "lest he wander into the forbidden area of the Court of the Israelites which is punishable by Karet (premature death) even today." This is because we have all contracted ritual impurity by being in contact with a dead body. However, we know from many sources that Jews continued to enter and even pray on the Temple Mount from the first through the 15th centuries. Many Rabbis of the Mishnah entered the Temple Mount area in the first and second centuries.
Ben-Zion Dinur proved [in Zion Journal 1928] that there was a Jewish house of prayer and study on the Temple Mount between the 7th and 11th centuries. The Rambam himself (!) visited the Temple Mount on the 14 of October 1165. Rabbi Menachem Hameiri of Provence (1249-1315) testifies, "and the custom is to enter the Temple Mount."
Rambam has ruled that those who have contracted ritual impurity from a corpse are not forbidden to enter the entire Temple Mount area. However, they are forbidden to enter the Rampart and the Court of Women, and the penalty of Karet applies only to those who enter the Court of Israelites and beyond.
If we can define the sanctified section of the Temple itself on what is today called the Temple Mount, we will perhaps be able to determine where it is permissible to enter. Indeed Rabbi David Ibn Zimra (1479-1573) and at least ten modern Rabbis, including Rabbis Hayyim Hirshinson, Rabbi Hayyim Dovid Halevi, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Rabbi Yosef Kafah and Rabbi Shlomo Risk in, have ruled that it is permissible to enter some parts of the Temple Mount today.
The main sources for the boundaries of the Temple Mount during the Second Temple period are the Mishnah, Tractate Middot and Josephus. There are contradictions between these sources, but there is general agreement among rabbis and archaeologists regarding two basic points.
1. The Temple Mount today is much larger than the Temple Mount described by Josephus and the Mishnah. It is clear that the southern area, south of the Mughrabi Gate, and all of the northern area north of the raised platform around the Dome of the Rock, were added by King Herod. Therefore, these areas are not included in the sanctified area of the Temple Mount mentioned in the Mishnah.
2. The Huge Rock underneath the Dome of the Rock is the "Foundation Stone" which was located under the Holy of Holies, or it is the foundation of the Altar of the Temple.
June 4, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
"They imply that the soil of the mount carries traces of God's existence, like basements carry radon. "
Great line, good post.
"The wall gestures, like all synagogues only more so, toward what is missing"
Yes, the material wall is merely a symbol, an image. Icon worship was ruled out by Moses, wasn't it?
June 3, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
the 1st of the 10 on the stone tablets did
June 4, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Bernard, for your little thought experiment.
There is exquisitely bittersweet, painful truth in your report: You include these words from Sidra: she "... insists that, after the temple was destroyed, Jews were left, not with divine places or stuff, but only metaphor (God is like this, God is like that). This invitation to poetic innovation engendered our talent for freedom."
This makes a lot of sense to me, based on what I I know of history, and what I have seen in 57 years of meeting all kinds of people.
I am an American Christian who has walked on the wall around the Temple mount. After approaching the Dome of the Rock from the Al Aqsa side, my wife and son walked eastward around the gold-domed mask, viewing along the way the blocked-up east gate where, I believe, my Savior had entered, about 2000 years ago, accompanied by palm fronds which had been tossed out by Jews of that time.
Anyway, when we had walked half way around the Dome, we found ourselves in an open space (on the north side?). I think it was cobblestoned, and as I recall (from 2002) it was an expanse-- large enough to accomadate a temple of reasonable size. And I wondered at that time: Why couldn't the Muslims sell this spot to the Jews; then they could both have a temple on top of the holy site.
I remembered having this thought when I read sj660's comment above : "I believe there is room for a Jewish holy site on the Temple Mount and preventing there from being one fuels a lot of what you complain about. It doesn't mean you tear down al-aqsa or the dome of the rock."
Later in that same day in 2002, we walked eastward, across the Kidron and up the the Mount of Olives. As I gazed back toward the Temple Mount, I wondered at the futility of Muslims and Jews arguing about real estate.
From my Christian perspective, what God is doing in the universe is not about real estate, or temples made with human hands. God's kingdom is something that exists in the hearts and minds of men and women who follow him.
A temple would be nice, but certainly not a prequequisite, for worship and prayer. Furthermore, its absence has produced, as Sidra has said, a "talent for freedom." And you, btw, make good use of that talent in this timely report. Thank you for posting it.
Carey Rowland, Glass half-Full
June 3, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There may be room for a synagogue on the site, but I can't see room in Jewish life for the priesthood or rabbinic grand hierarchy that would purport to run the place. It would be like Unitarians inventing a kind of papacy in order to get a piece of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Of course, Israel does now have a "Chief Rabbi" and a "Great Synagogue" which is a part of what is making us insane. But those of us who still have their marbles do not have to collude with these things.
June 4, 2009 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know it is difficult but comments like "what's making us insane" really dont' contribute. Always demeaning Judaism but not criticizing other religions or peoples in the same context is self-handicapping.
The Pope and his Cardinals would put Jewish priestly garbs to shame. Do you criticize that? The Arabs have a Mufti and a Haram A-Sharif and a Ka'aba. That is not something to make fun of?
Americans can barbecue on July 4th but one sacrifice can't be made, say, on the eve of Passover?
June 4, 2009 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Very few Jews speak seriously about rebuilding the temple in question..."
SEE: "Pastor Strangelove" by Sarah Posner @ "American Prospect", 05/21/06
(EXCERPT)...Besides his million-dollar compensation package, Hagee has a portfolio of other ventures, including a cattle ranch in south Texas that may have religious significance. Many evangelicals believe that the arrival of a "perfect red heifer" will signal the end times. In the Old Testament, burning a red heifer and sprinkling its ashes is described as a purification ritual for priests entering the temple. Ultra-orthodox Jews believe that the birth of a modern perfect red heifer will herald the arrival of the messiah, leading to a confrontation with Muslims over the Temple Mount, where Jews believe the Temple will be rebuilt. Some evangelicals likewise regard the red heifer as a harbinger of the ultimate showdown at the Temple Mount, which they believe will be the site of the Second Coming. And they believe that time is near.
To many other observers, the advent of the red heifer threatens to provoke a violent struggle for control of the Temple Mount, with worldwide repercussions. In the late 1990s, a group of unidentified Texas ranchers reportedly bred a perfect red heifer, which generated excitement in evangelical circles until the animal sprouted some black hairs.
Six years ago, the John C. Hagee Royalty Trust paid more than $5.5 million for a 7,600-acre ranch in Brackettville, Texas, where cattle are raised in a venture with the Texas Israel Agricultural Research Foundation, a nonprofit outfit operated by the pastor...Earl said that Hagee wants to share information to improve the production of livestock, particularly cattle, with an Israeli research project, but otherwise claimed to be unsure of the particulars. Dr. Scott Farhart, an obstetrician and trustee of the John C. Hagee Royalty Trust (and an elder at Hagee's church), did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the director of the ranch...
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=pastor_strangelove
June 3, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
FROM jesus-is-the-way.com/RedHeifer:
To Honor Jesus Christ, Glorify God, Encourage Believers, & Warn All
Est 07-03-2002 Chg 07-05-2008
This information is offered with the hope that YOU can come to KNOW the Lord personally.
Why is this significant?
The Jewish Rabbis must have a "perfect" Red Heifer for purification of the Temple. Without the Red Heifer there can be no purification and without purification there can be no Temple worship. The Red Heifer affords the opportunity to build the Jewish Temple, which as of this day (07-03-2002) does not exist...
...03-31-2004 In a related development- A friend of mine recently was returning from a trip to Paris on business and he met the well known Jimmy DeYoung (Bible teacher who lives in Israel) and got a chance to ask him one question- "Is the ark of covenant under the Dome of the Rock?"
Jimmy's answer- He "knows" from the rabbis that it IS under the Dome. End 03-31-2004
SOURCE - http://jesus-is-the-way.com/RedHeifer.html
June 3, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALSO FROM: jesus-is-the-way.com/RedHeifer:
07-05-2008 In a related development-
Third Temple preparations begin with priestly garb
On Monday, the Temple Institute started preparing to build a Third Temple on Jerusalem's Mount Moriah, the site of the Dome of the Rock and the Aksa mosque, by inaugurating a workshop that manufactures priestly garments.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726180915&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
SOURCE - http://jesus-is-the-way.com/RedHeifer.html
June 3, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Close, it is said, matters only when playing at horseshoes, but close also matters greatly when playing at Jerusalem."
It also matters when dropping cluster bombs and white phosphorus, especially right when school is letting out.
All it will take is the right series of false flag ops, and Israel will have their temple. Don't think it hasn't been game-planned.
June 3, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
the soil of the mount carries traces of God's existence
Excellent.
Let's raze the damn thing, powder it up and put it in little vials--we can sell'em for a fortune.
(Kind of like the sod from Yankee Stadium, or the bricks from Ebbets Field.)
June 3, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this excellent blog. I remember when I went to the Kotel. When I touched the wall to put in my note, I was overcome with emotion, and cried. I am not very religious, but there was a power in that place I have not felt since. So much history and emotion is a volatile mix. The ultra-orthodox who moved to Jerusalem from NY scare me as much as any other extremist. I hope they don't exert significant influence to keep the settlements going, etc.
I think the temple shouldn't be rebuilt. The greatest traditions and writings in our culture have come from the diaspora, and a decentralized preisthood. I don't want a Jewish Pope or Vatican.
June 4, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, I have got to get back to my Jewish roots again, you know get "frumagain" Apparently the more religious we Jews get, according to "Y Me, dad" the less we are responsible for our religion! This is great. The more religious we get, the more others have to live up to our standards, and chase our goalposts, and the less we have to.
See, this is how you do it: You just forget the end of the book. Since you are back in Israel, see, all you gotta do is pick back up at Solomon's empire, when God was willing to do little logistical military favors like hold up the sun and all, and not mind if we slaughter and forcibly circumcise our enemies.
But what about the rest of the book Medad? If I remember, the whole "chosen people" deal broke down. Too much adultery, too much whoring after false Gods, too many Golden Calves. And basically, God felt He could legally break His lease with the Jews due to our non-compliance. Didn't it culminate with the destruction of the Temple, and the Diaspora. You don't think God would let that happen if we Jews were still His best pals? Or did the Romans simply overpower the Jewish God? I doubt it.
No it's not Judaism. It's a land cult and an ethnic supremacy-militarism cult. And it completely rejects the things that make us Jewish.
It's the ultimate in hubris. Because some people, through the usual means (political manipulation, terrorism and theft) managed to do something which was once thought to be a job for God, instead of being abashed at their own arrogance, have decided they must be the Gods after all. Israel is just another Golden Calf.
Or did the diaspora, and the subsequent persecution of the Jews happen because our God got weaker than men or forgot about us? I shudder to even think these things! No, I can't believe God failed the Jews. The Jews must have failed God in some way. Which, of course, doesn't give anybody permission to be mean to us. But it should tell us that forming a "Jewish State" is best left to God.
And things aren't so bad here in the Goldenah Medina anyway.
June 4, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have full sympathy for your problems with Judaism, with ancient Judaism and with the Bible. We all have problems. I have a problem with you, suggesting that I hold views I do not (see 9:19 comment).
Anyway, you write:
"Apparently the more religious we Jews get, according to "Y Me, dad" the less we are responsible for our religion!".
Hmm. And I/you extrapolated that from...? No, the object in being religiously observant is to feel comfortable, do not do harm, do good deeds and be a positive example. Religious customs do change but the challenge is to see if what was good 3000 can still be applicable and relevant even though you may feel embarrassed at you religion or you think other peole would make fun of you (for that matter, for those to embarrassed about the idea of the Temple and its worship customs, watch this clip about the Festival of El Rocio. Its quaint, odd but tolerable. And I bet people are making money, too.)
And as for this assertion of yours:
"It's a land cult and an ethnic supremacy-militarism cult. And it completely rejects the things that make us Jewish"
you're being stupid (obviously, you're not ignorant so that's the only adjective I can think of). There are over 100 countries, nations, languages, ethnic-communities, nationalisms, etc. but when the Jews do something similar although quite special and unique and, in my opinion, we did it first and better, people like mooser the loser get all foamy and excited and adopt the "who me?" pose which means: "that's not Judaism". C'mon, get serious.
June 5, 2009 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if you want to know exactly what "Ymedad might say in response, go here:
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-make-case-for-israel-and-win.html
The whole of Hasbara in four little axioms.
June 4, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Moose,
Since I have nothing to do with that link, my name is not mentioned and, in case you had any doubts, those axioms do not represent my views, I must call you a lying cheat. Be warned, "mooser" is a loser.
June 5, 2009 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"For Judaism, Sidra explains, has always been a religion of distance from the divine, a religion of substitutions."
Hey, not always! C'mon, we were doing pretty good to start with. First God was willing to appear to individuals like Adam and Eve, later God made only multitude appearances, but by the end of the Old Testament, I think we may have blown it. He may turn back up any day, you never know.
June 4, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink