Ark of the Covenant

[Guest]

Might I remind everyone that it is hard to 'hear' tone in the context of a message board. No one was trying to be mean in any way. We should not be so easily offended.

[Guest]

Thanks Guest, for the reminder (we all need that one). Thanks mattrose for your comments as well. I actually agree with Hugh's displeasure over a Christian flaming someone and then signing off with a supposed blessing. This is why I was I disappointed in myself that my words came off that way. I truly was attempting to illustrate a point, with no thought of malice towards Damon.

As I stated earlier (with no scarcasm) I am teachable, and would like to know from Damon or anyone else what value a discovered ark would have for new covenant believers. I do see how it could be used in evangelism, but so can the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Left Behind series, and numerous other things. That said, I am reminded of what Abraham said: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead." Luke 16:31

JD

[Guest]

JD, I do appreciate the apology. Thank you.

Seriously though, it's so easy for any one of us - myself included - to fall into the trap of believing that if we can't see the relevance or importance of something, then it mustn't be very important. I would encourage you to not fall into that trap. Although I do consider the Ark to be important, that's not what I'd want you to focus on in this reply. This principle applies in practically every aspect of our lives, especially when it comes to personal relationships.

As far as the Ark (as well as any of the other Temple treasures) goes, well, here's an interesting thought for you. If God had them preserved, then they're obviously important to God somehow. That being the case, even if we ourselves might not be interested in just how they're important, we shouldn't necessarily assume that they aren't important.

Make sense?

Someone obviously went to a lot of trouble to preserve things like the Holy Anointing Oil and the Temple Incense, which Vendyl Jones has found. There's no way that they could have been preserved other than through direct inspiration from God, and the Copper Scroll (as well as the Emeq HaMelekh, the other record of what was hidden) claim exactly that. If for no other reason than for that alone, we should consider them to be important even if we can't see how they're important. Right?

Damon

[_Steve]

I am not sure that the finding of ancient temple furniture and paraphenalia would necessarily prove a) that they exist today because of special preservation by God, or b) that they have any religious significance to the people of God. If the Jews have found (as many say they have) the foundations of the original temple, this would not argue (to my mind) for its supernatural preservation, nor for its importance to Christians.

My understanding of Jeremiah 3:14ff is that it applies to the church age (yes, I do spiritualize "Zion," "Jerusalem," and "the land"--as did the early Christians --e.g., Heb.11:13-16; 12:22ff). This passage speaks of a time (the present, I think) when "They shall say no more, 'the ark of the covenant of the Lord.' It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore" (Jer.3:16).

I believe this passage is saying that the bringing of a New Covenant will render the Old Covenant, and its ark, obsolete (Heb.8:13). This obsolescence is permanent and irrevocable, for they will not remember the ark any more. Some may apply the passage to the millennium, but I do not think there is sufficient biblical evidence for a future millennium to justify this association.

For this reason, I am not as interested as are some in the rediscovery of relics from a defunct religious age, but it certainly would be interesting to see the ark, if it was found. In particular, I would be curious to see what the cherubims looked like in mind of Bezalel (Exodus 31:2ff) and compare that with what Ezekiel saw in the first chapter of his book.

[Guest]

Steve, first of all, did you think I was ignorant of this passage from Jeremiah? And secondly, you did it again. You ignored the evidence and fell back on your own belief system.

Because I'm tired of you doing this and potentially misleading people into erroneous conclusions, I'm going to post the relevant portions of Vendyl's discoveries here. Then everyone will be able to judge for themselves whether what I've said is true about the significance of these items having been preserved.

The following are the quotes:

There are four documents that describe the "hidden treasures" of the Tabernacle. These documents confirm and validate one another. They are:

1) The Copper Scroll which contains a list of the artifacts and where they were hidden.

2) A silver scroll which contains an inventory of each item and an explanation of all that was hidden with private inventory marks corresponding to the items.

3) Two marble tablets hidden at Mt. Carmel.

4) An ibex skin scroll which is an instruction manual on how to re-institute the service of the Holy Temple once these hidden treasures have been found.

The Copper Scroll was discovered in Cave Q3 on March 20, 1952. Later that same year, a Museum in Beirut, Lebanon was emptied for renovation. In the basement storage-room of the museum the curator found two marble tablets signed by "the servant of HaShem, Shimur HaLevi." [the servant of the Lord, Shimur the Levite] In 1963, an ibex skin scroll was found in Cave Q11 at Qumran. Cave Q11 is just a stone's throw from the Qetoret "factory" where the mixture of the spices was discovered in 1992. In 1967, Professor Yigal Yadin acquired the Ibex Skin Scroll which he later published under the title "The Temple Scroll."

Three of the four above records have been recovered. The "Silver Scroll" however, remains to be found.

One scholar commented that,

"the validity and authenticity of the Copper Scroll would remain in question until one single item mentioned in the scroll is discovered. Once something is found at Qumran that is listed among the 64 designated items and places, the scroll's validity will be unquestioned."

Two items have so far been found. The Holy Anointing Oil and the Temple Incense.

A Jewish record of the fact that Temple treasures were preserved also exists, called the Emeq HaMelekh, meaning "Valley of the Kings". This document begins with the following:

"These Mishnayot [records] were written by five righteous men. They are: Shimur the Levite, Hezekiah, Zedekiah, Haggai the Prophet and Zechariah, son of Iddo the Prophet. They concealed the vessels of the Temple and the wealth of the treasures that were in Jerusalem which will not be discovered until the day of the coming of Messiah, son of David, speedily in our times. Amen, and so it will be."

The mere fact that the Marble Tablets were signed by a "Shimur the Levite" shows that this Jewish record is not a fabrication, but a true account of what happened. Under God's direction, these men hid the Temple treasures, including the Holy Anointing Oil and the Temple Incense which have already been rediscovered.

Now, prophets don't do something 'just because.' They're intimately aware of God's will because God directly communicates with them on an ongoing basis. To assume that what they did was unimportant or somehow outside of the parameters of God's will is pure foolishness, whatever we might believe about the secondary importance of the Temple or its worship system because of what we read in the New Testament.

I still doubt that I'm going to get through to you, but my point is that you're ignoring the evidence and disregarding the facts in order to stick with your belief system. To you, it's contradictory for the New Testament to state that this worship system and these artifacts are no longer needed, but yet for God to have had them preserved. I respectfully submit that even though it might seem contradictory, that merely indicates a gap in your understanding. Even if you aren't interested in figuring out the why's and wherefore's, you should NEVER just dismiss the evidence and the facts because you see a contradiction. That's intellectually and spiritually irresponsible, both for yourself and for those whom you teach.

Damon

[_Steve]

Damon,
I am not sure what evidence you think I am ignoring. I certainly have not ignored any that you presented. I simply choose to make up my own mind (which apparently offends you) as to whether I agree with your assessment of the eschatological significance of what was found.

There were quite a few religious writings found in the Qumran Caves--none of them Christian (I am a Christian. That is a different religion than Judaism). In fact, the Essenes, whose library was found there, were not even mainstream Jews. Do you wish for me to believe every doctrine and affirm the rightness of every practice of the Qumran Community? On what basis would I do so?

Finding the Essenes' religious library may be interesting from an archaeological point of view (and the discovery of the ancient copies of the Tenakh was very helpful to us, since we needed to find older copies of these books than we had in the Massoretic Text). However, apart from the Old Testament scrolls, the contents of the Qumran Caves all have one thing in common: they are not canonical. That means they do not present authoritative norms for either Jewish or Christian belief and practice.

If some Jews of a certain period believed that the rediscovery of these items would await the time of the Messiah's coming, why should I believe that they were correct? You must be aware of the numerous mistaken notions about the Messiah and the messianic age that existed among the rabbis. They were so wrong about this subject that they didn't even recognise the Messiah when He spoke to them face-to-face. I have no reason to trust their ideas. I will stick with the inspired ideas of Jesus and the apostles, which I find in the New Testament.

Nor am I impressed that the prophets Zechariah and Haggai allegedly were signatories to some document to this effect. First, because you are quite wrong in your assertion that prophets always know what God is up to. Unless they have an oracle concerning a certain thing, they speak with as much fallibility as do you or I (consider Nathan's misjudgment of the will of God in 2 Sam.7:1-3, or the fatal miscalculation of the unnamed prophet of Judea, in 1 Kings 13:11-22).

Second, I find it unlikely that the prophets Zechariah and Haggai would have hidden temple vessels at a time when the temple was being rebuilt (which is when they lived). If they had lived at a time when the temple was about to be dismantled (as Jeremiah did), then they might wish to hide the holy vessels, but why would they hide them when the temple was in use and needed the vessels on a daily basis?

Not being familiar with these non-canonical scrolls, I don't quite understand why this would have been done. Why should we believe that these prophets were the true writers of these documents any more than that Enoch or the Twelve Patriarchs really wrote the non-canonical books that bear their names?

I am not ignoring the fact that these things exist, and that is the only thing that the "evidence" points to--their existence. What I am questioning is their significance to Christians. The mere finding of artifacts cannot itself be regarded as evidence of God's evaluation of those artifacts. I look for God's evaluation in His actual words, in scripture, not in ancient writings of non-Christian religions.

[Guest]

Damon,

I am not sure what evidence you think I am ignoring.

See below.

There were quite a few religious writings found in the Qumran Caves--none of them Christian (I am a Christian. That is a different religion than Judaism).

Steve, I know you're not being deliberately obtuse but sometimes you really do come across that way. My question to you is, was there such a thing as a "faithful saint" prior to Jesus? The answer? Of course there was! Therefore, your argument is baseless because you're attacking a straw man. A document doesn't have to be "Christian" or come from a post-Jesus era to be authentic or inspired from God. If that were the case, we should just throw out the whole of the Old Testament.

Furthermore, the Copper Scroll isn't even Essene, as you've implied. If you had read the web site, you'd have seen Mr. Jones' argument as to why it cannot be Essene in origin. I understand that you feel that you have better subjects and threads on this forum to which to devote your meager free time, and I have no problem with that. But in the meantime, you're speaking from ignorance because you simply don't have all of the facts.

See below on why the Copper Scroll being "non-Canonical" isn't a show-stopper, either.

If some Jews of a certain period believed that the rediscovery of these items would await the time of the Messiah's coming, why should I believe that they were correct?

Because those "Jews" happened to be prophets. That's why. I told you who wrote the Emeq HaMelekh, and proved that the attribution was correct through independent archaeological testimony. If you're not interested in this subject, that's one thing, but to state that we have no good reason for believing that these things were preserved on more than just someone thinking that it would be a 'good idea' is simply a reckless and shoddy treatment of the available facts.

Nor am I impressed that the prophets Zechariah and Haggai allegedly were signatories to some document to this effect. First, because you are quite wrong in your assertion that prophets always know what God is up to. Unless they have an oracle concerning a certain thing, they speak with as much fallibility as do you or I...

So you think the prophets who hid these Temple treasures - and they were voluminous! - would have done so WITHOUT consulting God!?

Second, I find it unlikely that the prophets Zechariah and Haggai would have hidden temple vessels at a time when the temple was being rebuilt (which is when they lived). If they had lived at a time when the temple was about to be dismantled (as Jeremiah did), then they might wish to hide the holy vessels, but why would they hide them when the temple was in use and needed the vessels on a daily basis?

First of all, they were alive when the first Temple was about to be destroyed and survived until the time that the second Temple was being built, just as Daniel himself did. Secondly, they knew that the second Temple was - to use the Jews' own description of it - deficient! In other words, it was incomplete! The Ark of the Covenant, upon which dwelt the presence of God (see Ex. 25:10-22), was missing from the second Temple. Even the nation of Israel was "deficient" at that time, since ten of the original tribes never returned to the land. Also, the second Temple wasn't built according to the "Messianic" blueprint in Ezekiel 40-48. So in all respects the Temple - and the nation it served - were deficient.

These prophets foresaw a time when "all things would be restored" and that a Temple could be built which would house the returned Ark of the Covenant, serving a rejoined nation of Israel. That's why they had these things preserved. If they had no reason at all for their preservation, they would have used these things for the second Temple, as you've stated. But obviously they didn't, so there was a reason.

Not being familiar with these non-canonical scrolls, I don't quite understand why this would have been done. Why should we believe that these prophets were the true writers of these documents any more than that Enoch or the Twelve Patriarchs really wrote the non-canonical books that bear their names?

Because we have independent, archaeological verification that Shimur the Levite actually existed and that he wrote the Marble Tablets which are described in the Copper Scroll, first of all. Secondly, because two of the Temple treasures have been found, in addition to all of these various records of their existence - the Copper Scroll, the Marble Tablets, etc., and all independent of one another so that they couldn't be modern forgeries. Furthermore, the Holy Anointing Oil was never present in the second Temple, so it couldn't have come from that time! It had to have come from the time of the first Temple, and therefore it's a further confirmation that these things are true.

I am not ignoring the fact that these things exist, and that is the only thing that the "evidence" points to--their existence. What I am questioning is their significance to Christians. The mere finding of artifacts cannot itself be regarded as evidence of God's evaluation of those artifacts.

True, which is why you have to put the rest of the facts together, as I've shown above. But why did I have to explain these things to you, instead of you being able to posit some of these answers for yourself? The answer is because you're a natural skeptic. Unless someone can lay out every detail for you and present it in a way which doesn't offend your sensibilities about the way things ought to be (like having Temple artifacts preserved even though, according to the NT, that system of worship has been done away with), it's not important to you and, worse, it's easier to simply blow off.

Damon

[Guest]

Hebrews 8:7-10:10 (New Living Translation)

7 If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it. 8 But God himself found fault with the old one when he said:
“The day will come, says the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel and Judah.
9 This covenant will not be like the one
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
and led them out of the land of Egypt.
They did not remain faithful to my covenant,
so I turned my back on them, says the Lord.
10 But this is the new covenant I will make
with the people of Israel on that day, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their minds
so they will understand them,
and I will write them on their hearts
so they will obey them.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 And they will not need to teach their neighbors,
nor will they need to teach their family,
saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’
For everyone, from the least to the greatest,
will already know me.
12 And I will forgive their wrongdoings,
and I will never again remember their sins.”

13 When God speaks of a new covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and ready to be put aside.

9 Now in that first covenant between God and Israel, there were regulations for worship and a sacred tent here on earth. 2 There were two rooms in this tent. In the first room were a lampstand, a table, and loaves of holy bread on the table. This was called the Holy Place. 3 Then there was a curtain, and behind the curtain was the second room called the Most Holy Place. 4 In that room were a gold incense altar and a wooden chest called the Ark of the Covenant, which was covered with gold on all sides. Inside the Ark were a gold jar containing some manna, Aaron’s staff that sprouted leaves, and the stone tablets of the covenant with the Ten Commandments written on them. 5 The glorious cherubim were above the Ark. Their wings were stretched out over the Ark’s cover, the place of atonement. But we cannot explain all of these things now.

6 When these things were all in place, the priests went in and out of the first room regularly as they performed their religious duties. 7 But only the high priest goes into the Most Holy Place, and only once a year, and always with blood, which he offers to God to cover his own sins and the sins the people have committed in ignorance. 8 By these regulations the Holy Spirit revealed that the Most Holy Place was not open to the people as long as the first room and the entire system it represents were still in use.

9 This is an illustration pointing to the present time. For the gifts and sacrifices that the priests offer are not able to cleanse the consciences of the people who bring them. 10 For that old system deals only with food and drink and ritual washing—external regulations that are in effect only until their limitations can be corrected.

11 So Christ has now become the High Priest over all the good things that have come. He has entered that great, perfect sanctuary in heaven, not made by human hands and not part of this created world. 12 Once for all time he took blood into that Most Holy Place, but not the blood of goats and calves. He took his own blood, and with it he secured our salvation forever.

13 Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow could cleanse people’s bodies from ritual defilement. 14 Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our hearts from deeds that lead to death so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. 15 That is why he is the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, so that all who are invited can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.

16 Now when someone dies and leaves a will, no one gets anything until it is proved that the person who wrote the will is dead. 17 The will goes into effect only after the death of the person who wrote it. While the person is still alive, no one can use the will to get any of the things promised to them.

18 That is why blood was required under the first covenant as a proof of death. 19 For after Moses had given the people all of God’s laws, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, and sprinkled both the book of God’s laws and all the people, using branches of hyssop bushes and scarlet wool. 20 Then he said, “This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.” 21 And in the same way, he sprinkled blood on the sacred tent and on everything used for worship. 22 In fact, we can say that according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified by sprinkling with blood. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.

23 That is why the earthly tent and everything in it—which were copies of things in heaven—had to be purified by the blood of animals. But the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices than the blood of animals.

24 For Christ has entered into heaven itself to appear now before God as our Advocate. He did not go into the earthly place of worship, for that was merely a copy of the real Temple in heaven. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the earthly high priest who enters the Most Holy Place year after year to offer the blood of an animal. 26 If that had been necessary, he would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But no! He came once for all time, at the end of the age, to remove the power of sin forever by his sacrificial death for us.

27 And just as it is destined that each person dies only once and after that comes judgment, 28 so also Christ died only once as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again but not to deal with our sins again. This time he will bring salvation to all those who are eagerly waiting for him.

10 The old system in the law of Moses was only a shadow of the things to come, not the reality of the good things Christ has done for us. The sacrifices under the old system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. 2 If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared.

3 But just the opposite happened. Those yearly sacrifices reminded them of their sins year after year. 4 For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 That is why Christ, when he came into the world, said,
“You did not want animal sacrifices and grain offerings.
But you have given me a body so that I may obey you.
6 No, you were not pleased with animals burned on the altar
or with other offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God—
just as it is written about me in the Scriptures.’ ”

8 Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or grain offerings or animals burned on the altar or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses). 9 Then he added, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to establish the second. 10 And what God wants is for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.

[_Steve]

Damon,

I confess your arrogance tries my patience. Your petulent cry, "Steve, first of all, did you think I was ignorant of this passage from Jeremiah?" is so classic of someone who cannot endure being thought of as less knowledgable than he himself thinks he is. I never said anything about you being unaware of the passage in Jeremiah, any more than you are necessarily implying that I am ignorant (are you?) whenever you present a piece of information in support of your view. Can I no longer site scripture for my points without you taking it as a personal affront to your biblical sophistication? Humble yourself, Brother. You aren't as important as you think you are. Come down here with the rest of us, and just be human.

You ask why you had to spell out for me the significance of your point, and why I couldn't put it all together myself? For one thing, I have a different way of evaluating evidence than you have. All data certainly points toward some conclusion, but not everyone seems to have equal capacity to recognise what conclusions are, and which are not, supported by a particular bit of data. Even after you have spelled it out in your last post, I still do not see, any more clearly than before, that the evidence points to anything more than the fact that certain artifacts have been preserved through time (which is, of course, no new insight).

You ask me whether there were any faithful saints in pre-christian times, and the answer is obviously "yes," but how does that help your point and render mine "baseless"? There are faithful saints even now, but I don't take everything they say as infallible. Being a faithful saint who was born 3000 years ago doesn't give one any more claim to canonicity than does being a faithful saint born twenty years ago. How does this help your position?.

You say they were prophets, but I see only claims of this, not proof.

You say Zechariah and Haggai were around before the destruction of the first temple (pre-586 BC) and that they hid the temple vessels. But how do you know they were even born then? There is no biblical record of their existence until their ministries began in 520 B.C., sixty-six years later. If they were indeed in Jerusalem prior to 586 B.C., they would have to have been little boys or adolescents at that time. Zechariah couldn't even be a priest until age 30, so how would he have been in the position as a boy to deliberate about the hiding of the temple vessels? Even if Zechariah was 30, and had entered the priesthood in 586 B.C., and was 96 years old when he began his ministry (a suggestion intrinsically unlikely, in my humble judgment) why would he, as a novice priest, be chosen above the older men to deal with this important business? Sorry. This just doesn't add up. The existence of a document bearing the names of these men does not prove that they really wrote it, any more than the existence of one called "the Gospel of Thomas" proves that Thomas wrote it.

You ask: "So you think the prophets who hid these Temple treasures...would have done so WITHOUT consulting God!?" How should you or I know that? There have been, as you said, many saints and prophets in pre-Christian times, but that tells us nothing in itself of the rightness of the actions of any of them in particular. Even Joshua neglected to consult the Lord before entering a pact with the Gibeonites, and Nathan the prophet encouraged David to build the temple without consulting the Lord. Saints and prophets have been known to err in judgment. The prophet Abraham lied about his wife's relationship to him, and Moses disobediently struck the rock a second time. There are enough examples to prove that prophets (like the rest of us) can mistakenly move on their own misguided sentiments.

The one thing I do know (from reading the New Testament) is that even the canonical prophets had serious deficiencies in their understanding of their own oracles concerning the messianic age. Peter tells us this in no uncertain terms (1 Peter 1:10-12). Therefore, I am not as impressed as are you with either the infallibility of every prophet's opinion, nor of your authority as a prophet to override the teachings of the New Testament.


A second obstruction to agreement between us is that we have different sets of presuppositions: You believe that there is a godly future for temple Judaism, and are willing to let your wishful thinking drive you far beyond anything the evidence really proves in order to support your hopes about this. By contrast, I am starting with the presupposition that Christ is the brightness of God's glory, the express image of His person, and God's final word about such matters of atonement, redemption, worship and spirituality. The return to shadows has no place in the theology of the New Testament, which is the only reason I reject it.

A third reason we do not reach the same conclusions is that you and I are impressed with different authorities. I am impressed with the canonical scriptures as the ultimate authority on such matters as we are here discussing. You are impressed (as you have demonstrated in other threads, as well as this one) with the writings and sayings of "prophets" of a non-canonical character, a category that you seem to believe includes yourself. In many previous posts to this forum, your irritation has flared up over the fact that I have not simply bowed to the superior authority of your "revelations" and "discernment." I have known many people through the years who claimed to be prophets, so I am not immediately impressed by your claims or anyone else's to being such a one. If you are a prophet, then nothing will prove this better than by your speaking truth according to Christ and scripture. "If they do not speak according to this word, there is no light in them" (Isa.8:20).


Before responding to me this time, try to calm down, take a breath, and think seriously about whether you have a rational and biblical answer to give me. You are right in observing that I have limited time for unnecessary reading and responding, so let me save us both some trouble and time. I obviously don't object to people disagreeing with me, or even insulting me, on this forum. However, you have now said enough about your position on this matter, unless your future posts can somehow demonstrate that:

1) You have the ability to recognise what evidence does and does not prove;

2) You can show that the restoration of Jewish temple worship does not conflict with the finished nature of Christ's atonement; and

3) You can find support in the actual scriptures (especially the teachings of Christ and the apostles) for the need for a restoration of temple Judaism in the last days.


I am not saying that you have no right to post on other websites whatever you wish and to defend your positions by appeal to whatever authorities impress you, but I simply don't think you need to say more here on this subject, unless you can overcome the three above hurdles that result in our talking past each other.

I have always allowed Mormons, Catholics, and others who diminish scriptural authority to present their positions to me up to a point, but when it becomes obvious that their appeal is to an authority other than scripture, it is clear that no progress can be made toward learning the truth. As the gatekeeper of this forum, I need to set limits (if only because of the limits on my own time) as to how long and fruitlessly a disagreement will be permitted to meander through these threads before it is necessary to cut it off, because it has obviously reached a dead end, nothing new is being presented, and nothing remains to fuel the discussion but two or more egos each insisting upon having the last word.

[Guest]

I never said anything about you being unaware of the passage in Jeremiah, any more than you are necessarily implying that I am ignorant (are you?) whenever you present a piece of information in support of your view.

*shakes his head* Steve, this goes beyond what you think it does. I agree that we should each be humble and respectful of one another, that much is true. But this isn't a matter of arguing over opinions and beliefs. This is a matter of seeing what's there to see. Not opinions, but facts.

When I got angry about you quoting the passage in Jeremiah, it wasn't because I was being arrogant about my knowledge versus your knowledge. It was because I was frustrated that you brought up a biblical passage to try to contradict the archaeological evidence. But proofs don't work that way! We need to "prove all things" based on the evidence at hand! Then, we can look to see whether the evidence stacks up to what we believe. If there appears to be a contradiction between the evidence and what we believe, then we either change what we believe, or accept that there is an apparent contradiction and live with that for the time being.

What I was asking you to do is to consider living with the apparent contradiction between what you believe and the archaeological evidence showing that First Temple artifacts have been preserved for a God-inspired purpose.

Consider this. I've studied a lot of material - both secular and religious - concerning the biblical Flood. I don't believe that I can muster the evidence to show that the Flood happened as the bible describes it. However, I'm willing to live with this apparent contradiction for the time being, because I trust that it will resolve itself when the time is right.

There's another issue here, and it involves a form of autism that I have. I don't know if you've heard of something called "Asperger's Syndrome" but I have a mild case of it. I'm not seriously socially unaware like some of the people who have this, but I'm not like most normal people either. One of the benefits of having Asperger's Syndrome is that I'm able to see details that most people don't see, remember things that most people wouldn't remember, or even understand things very quickly that the average person would take a lot longer to understand, if at all. The disadvantage is a lack of social awareness on my part, including not always knowing in advance how what I write will be received by others.

To use an analogy I once heard, it's like pulling a tablecloth to one side. There's a lot of extra tablecloth on one side of the table, but the other side comes up short.

Steve, I believe the difficulty between us stems, not from arrogance on my part, but from frustration about being able to see things that others just don't see. To give an example that you'd be able to relate to, you can probably see very clearly that the historical evidence - both religious and secular - leads to the inescapable conclusion that Jesus died and rose again. Right? But many people in the world just can't see it, because the understanding has to be revealed to them by God. But there are other examples that involve being able to put facts together, like what we've been trying to do here.

I'm sure you've heard a lot about King Arthur, right? Some people say that he was just a myth, whereas others say that there's no question that he was a historical figure. A recent special on the History Channel made the claim that there is no contemporary attestation to King Arthur's existence...but the foremost scholar on King Arthur, a lady by the name of Norma Lorre Goodrich, pointed out that there's a Welsh document, dated to the time of King Arthur, which mentions his name! For some reason or other, many of the Arthurian scholars see fit to ignore this document, if they know of it at all. A lot of them think that Ms. Goodrich (who is recently deceased, I think) was a total flake and didn't know what she was talking about...but she could see something that those other scholars couldn't (and still can't). And, she got no end of grief because of it.

You might also want to watch a film called "Amadeus". It tells the story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a musical genius who was posthumously diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome because his biographies all showed that he had the classic symptoms, even though no one in his time knew of it. In the film, only one man - Salieri - could recognize that Mozart was a true genius of the highest caliber. On the other hand, the other musicians of his time thought that Mozart's music had "too many notes." In other words, it was too complicated and therefore worthless. Fortunately, history has seen fit to prove those other musicians wrong.

Now, I'm not saying that I see everything accurately, mind you. Not at all! I do have the humility to admit that I make mistakes just like anyone else. But because I have a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome, I'm going to see more of the details than the average person. That's not arrogant boasting on my part. That's just the facts.

I'm also not claiming to be of the caliber of Mozart, Einstein, Bill Gates, or other geniuses who had or presently have Asperger's Syndrome. But, in one specific area, my ability does go very far beyond average.

A second obstruction to agreement between us is that we have different sets of presuppositions: You believe that there is a godly future for temple Judaism, and are willing to let your wishful thinking drive you far beyond anything the evidence really proves in order to support your hopes about this. By contrast, I am starting with the presupposition that Christ is the brightness of God's glory, the express image of His person, and God's final word about such matters of atonement, redemption, worship and spirituality. The return to shadows has no place in the theology of the New Testament, which is the only reason I reject it.

But you're making the assumption that my presupposition affects how I examine the evidence. Simply put, IT CAN'T! I have Asperger's Syndrome, and that means that I'm strongly predisposed to see things for the way they are, not the way that my presuppositions might dictate. From what I can see - and you're certainly free to disagree, make no mistake - the evidence pointing towards the purposeful and God-inspired preservation of many of the Temple treasures is conclusive.

A third reason we do not reach the same conclusions is that you and I are impressed with different authorities. I am impressed with the canonical scriptures as the ultimate authority on such matters as we are here discussing. You are impressed (as you have demonstrated in other threads, as well as this one) with the writings and sayings of "prophets" of a non-canonical character, a category that you seem to believe includes yourself.

I never claimed to be a prophet. A prophet is in the office of teaching the revealed word of God to the people. That's their job. I never made any such claim, and that's one example of where you've fallen short on the details. I did say that God directly inspired me to understand certain things, but I never claimed that my job was to teach people what God had caused me to understand, nor did I claim that these revelations were ongoing or consistent, as they were for the biblical prophets.

As far as these being "non-Canonical prophets", that's not true. They're prophets that the bible itself mentions! I don't see how you got that confused, but you apparently did.

Also, do you believe that every single revelation of God is contained in the bible? There's no possibility of there being any inspired documents - or at the very least, historically accurate ones - apart from what's in the bible?

You ask: "So you think the prophets who hid these Temple treasures...would have done so WITHOUT consulting God!?" How should you or I know that?

Let's put it this way. The people in Judea who were rebellious wouldn't have cared about the Temple or its accoutrements, other than perhaps as booty to sell in order to survive. But, the people who were faithful would have cared. And since they considered the central focus of God's action in their lives to be the Temple, how likely would it have been for them to have hidden all of these things without consulting God?

The answer, as you well know, is nil. It's only your belief system that prevents you from accepting reality for what it is. You seem to have a real problem just living with an apparent contradiction between the archaeological evidence and what the New Testament says, and letting that contradiction resolve itself in due course. I don't know why, but that's the way it seems to me.

...and Nathan the prophet encouraged David to build the temple without consulting the Lord.

True, but God nevertheless intervened and dictated how things were to be handled. Again, since the central focus of worship for the few who were faithful in Judea at that time was the Temple, even if every single one of them neglected to ask God in advance what His will was for these Temple treasures (which is astronomically unlikely as far as I can see), God would still have intervened and dictated how things were to be handled, just as He did with Nathan and David.

The fact that you won't even allow for this as a possibility, even if it leads to a seeming contradiction in your belief system, says to me that you're not really being as non-partisan and unbiased as you apparently think you are. I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing, because everyone - myself included - has thoughts and beliefs which are verboten under any circumstances. For instance, I find it impossible to bring myself to believe that God does not exist, no matter what evidence I might be shown.

However, you have now said enough about your position on this matter, unless your future posts can somehow demonstrate that:

1) You have the ability to recognise what evidence does and does not prove;

2) You can show that the restoration of Jewish temple worship does not conflict with the finished nature of Christ's atonement; and

3) You can find support in the actual scriptures (especially the teachings of Christ and the apostles) for the need for a restoration of temple Judaism in the last days.

As I said, my only goal here is to get people to see that the evidence proves that the Temple treasures were preserved for a God-inspired purpose. I'm not ready to take the next step and tackle #2 or #3, or anything similar. If that leaves the readership with a seeming contradiction between what the archaeological evidence shows and what they believe, according to what the New Testament says, then I'm sorry but they'll just have to live with that for now. That explanation will have to wait until the time is right, and the time isn't right yet. It would be like trying to pour more into a vessel than it's able to hold, so I have to wait until circumstances independent from myself and what I might say or do have prepared people to be ready for the explanation.

Damon