The Ark of the Covenant

[iBrian]

Possibly an extremely naive question here - but if a third party claimed to have found the Ark of Covenant, and for all intents and purposes the claim seemed likely to be upheld, then what would the general effect of people of the Jewish faith?

While I appreciate there is diversity, I'm implicitly asking about whether there is a set procedure for dealing with it, and whether its "discovery" would be regarded as portentious, pointless - or even be outright unwelcome?

Would the Ark of Covenant have a role to play in moder-day Judaism, or is it simply a relic of a lost age that belongs in that time only?

Also - if secular authorities had dispensation over the Ark of the Covenant then would that be regarded as ultimately sacreligious? Would there be vehement opposition to it being displayed in a museum as a historical artifact, or is it's value strictly religious only?

Apologies for the questions - justy watched "Raiders of the Lost Ark" last night, and was curious as to the Jewish opinion that might greet a public "discovery".

 

[Mus Zibii]

You're not alone in wondering. I imagine it'd be viewed as impossible to prove, unless it spouted lightening, etc. And if it did, then... well.

I've always looked at the various Christians claimants - Ethiopia, etc - as being almost insulting to the concept. But then the fact it was so easily stolen/lost begs answer.

 

[bananabrain]

i suppose it depends who found it and who got to look at it. i dare say that if it could be validated and was in the posession of someone else, israel would demand its return as a national treasure, rather like if someone other than the UK had 'excalibur', or someone other than the vatican had the 'true cross', or something like that.

that takes us to the first question - how to validate its truth? there are plenty of sources which describe the ark, including many of our commentators. so presumably a religious authority, which means a number of leading rabbis, assuming they could stop squabbling with each other long enough to agree to be in the same group. they certainly wouldn't fancy any archaeologists or probably scientists being involved unless they were religious jews. and i dare say the vatican would expect to get its oar in at some point as well and whinge if it wasn't allowed. for all i know they've got it themselves and are keeping schtum about it.

this leads us to the question of where exactly we think it is - now, most commentators agree that rather than all this tanis nonsense from ROTLA, the ark was hidden somewhere in a deep chamber on the temple mount by king hezekiah. this is why everyone is so leery about the palestinian waqf which runs the site excavating in the area known as solomon's stables, because they know perfectly well what could be there. imagine these guys getting hold of the ark and blackmailing israel into concessions as a result, or even destroying it out of pique or antisemitism.

as for the question of it being in a museum, i can't see any religious jew, including myself, being happy with that, considering it's a holy object that only one person, the high priest, got to see a couple of times a year.

so, i suppose the answer is that blimey, i don't exactly know what would happen, but it could go horribly wrong.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Mus Zibii]

LOL In keeping with the Indiana Jones theme, if it does get found.. don't look at it.

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

bb,

In your humble opinion, what do you think would happen if somehow the Ark was damaged or destroyed, especially if it was done in a fit of pique (and not necessarily by Palestinians)? *meow*

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[Quahom1]

bb,

In your humble opinion, what do you think would happen if somehow the Ark was damaged or destroyed, especially if it was done in a fit of pique (and not necessarily by Palestinians)? *meow*

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

Based on the specific instructions given in the "Book" on how it was originally built, I suspect it would be rebuilt/repaired to the same specifications. However, I hardly think it matters to God. It was more for man's sake that the Ark was made, based on what was considered physically valuable to man at the time.

I don't think God needs gold and cedar to present Himself as much as man thinks God does...or did...

...but then I've been known to throw past the second basemen a time or two, in a clinch play.

v/r

Q

 

[Mus Zibii]

Well, if Uzzah snuffed it for trying to steady the ark I'd hate to guess what might happen to the dude with a crowbar.

 

[bananabrain]

In your humble opinion, what do you think would happen if somehow the Ark was damaged or destroyed, especially if it was done in a fit of pique

sheesh, well, like mus zibii says, i personally wouldn't want to be the bloke that tries. i honestly don't know and hope i never have to think about it.

However, I hardly think it matters to God. It was more for man's sake that the Ark was made, based on what was considered physically valuable to man at the time. I don't think God needs gold and cedar to present Himself as much as man thinks God does...or did...

well, that's certainly what G!D actually says about it. RaMBa"M (maimonides) says the whole idea of having a Temple and sacrifices at all was a concession to human nature - although we'll still have to reinstitute them at some point and in some form when Moshiach finally gets his arse in gear, b'mheira beyameinu.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Sacredstar]

It would be great to have a brief history of the Ark here, any offers? What happened after Joshua took it across the River Jordan? If it was only seen by priests infrequently, was it covered while it was travelling? Then?

Sacredstar

 

[Quahom1]

It would be great to have a brief history of the Ark here, any offers? What happened after Joshua took it across the River Jordan? If it was only seen by priests infrequently, was it covered while it was travelling? Then?

Sacredstar

There are three main theories as to the ultimate end of the ark. The
first places the ark in Babylonian hands during one of their invasions,
where it would have been destroyed for the gold (2 Choronicles 36:19).
A careful study of Scriptures shows the punishment for touching the ark,
even with good intentions. From this some scholars feel the ark could
not have been destroyed in this manner.



The second theory credits the disappearance of the ark to the prophet
Jeremiah, who supposedly hid it in a cave on Mount Nebo. The incident
is found in the apocryphal book of Second Maccabees (2 Maccabees 2:4-8)



http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/ma2.htm

Lastly, the ark could have been hidden in a chamber underneath the
temple. These chambers could have been placed there
by Solomon as a precautionary measure to protect the sacred vessels
during the original construction. Some attribute these chambers to
King Josiah, who could have added them during the renovation after he
had been told by God that Judah would be destroyed as a nation after
his death.

In regard to the view that Pharaoh Shishak took the ark, refer to
1 Kings 14:25-28. This invasion took place around 956 B.C., 350 years
before the reign of King Josiah, who definitely had possession of the
ark.http://www.shortcuts.com/arkstory.html

v/r

Q

 

[Sacredstar]

Dear Quahom

Thank you for sharing....now I am wondering about the tomb found in Egypt that they were saying was Solomon's when I there last.

Sacredstar

 

[dauer]

imnsho,

The field of Egyptology is littered with so many motivations that it's important to know the source of any information before giving it credibility. Either it's Jews and Christians looking to prove the stories of Exodus or Egyptians trying to take credit for all of monotheism. There's too much trying to prove, too little taking of discoveries at the plain meaning.

This is the closest you will probably come to legitimate evidence of Solomon's Tomb:

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/solotomb.htm

If you want to get some clues where Solomon was buried, turn to 1 Kings 11:43.

Dauer

 

[Sacredstar]

Dear Daur

Well I can't say that I trust the bible in this context for the reason that you have already stated above. The comic was fitting I thought, for many things portrayed in the bible by those who chose to control and dominate the masses.

The truth sets us free

The film about Solomon viewed as a child left an amazing memory engrained. A man of true justice, fairness and wisdom. I feel he was certainly in tune with the natural laws of the universe.

Love beyond measure

Sacrestar

 

[Quahom1]

Love beyond measure

Sacrestar

I had to smile when I saw your sign off. My mother told me long ago that real love IS beyond measure. I guess I'm only beginning to see now, what she knows...

v/r

Q

 

[dauer]

Sacredstar,

Solomon created the idea that he had divine wisdom in order to take power away from the prophets. It minimized everyone else's power and maximized his. He had the people working under forced labor to build the Temple, something there is no evidence they desired. Considering that they were used to tents and also used to worshipping in many places, and also considering that part of the pitch for the Northern Kingdom was letting everybody worship at their ancestral shrines again and no longer be forced to worship only in one place, I don't think any of his wisdom was particularly divine. But as you said, it was often manipulated by those in power to serve them.

Truth is relative.

Dauer

 

[Quahom1]

Sacredstar,

Solomon created the idea that he had divine wisdom in order to take power away from the prophets. It minimized everyone else's power and maximized his. He had the people working under forced labor to build the Temple, something there is no evidence they desired. Considering that they were used to tents and also used to worshipping in many places, and also considering that part of the pitch for the Northern Kingdom was letting everybody worship at their ancestral shrines again and no longer be forced to worship only in one place, I don't think any of his wisdom was particularly divine. But as you said, it was often manipulated by those in power to serve them.

Truth is relative.

Dauer

Good morning Dauer,

Solomon was given dominion over a people considered to be the most stubborn on Earth. He knew this, so he asked God for a simple, yet profound and insightful gift.

"Give me an understanding heart to judge your people, that I may know between good and bad...for who is able to judge this great people of yours?" (I Kings 3:9)

Solomon did not ask for riches, nor health, nor long life, nor women, nor anything for self. He asked for a gift that he could give to God's people.


Don't you find it interesting that King Solomon (who drove his people like pack mules), also personally chose to sit in judgement over their individual affairs?
Consider the two women fighting for custody over the newborn child...He knew the truth of the love within a mother's heart for her child, and caused that truth to surface for all to see. He proved who the biological mother was without benefit of a DNA analysis! He also exposed the depth of extreme a woman who lost a child, would go to, in her agony over that loss.

If you look at it closely, you realize that Solomon did not convict either woman at all. He allowed them to convict themselves.

Perhaps his "wisdom" would sit with you better, if it were called "shrewdness".

His understanding of God's purpose for His people, was not to do as they pleased, worship where they wished, live in tents on the shifting sands. God had a grander plan for His people, whether they liked it or not.

In short, this PARENT made certain that HIS children did not do as they pleased, but lived as they should, and used Solomon to directly get the job done. Solomon asked for a simple, yet profound gift. He dared ask God for a little bit of the wisdom of God. God gave it to Solomon, and Solomon USED it.

If you read further in the book of Kings, you'll find that the People of Israel did not suffer under Solomon's reign, they prospered phenominally!

It was only when Solomon began acting foolishly (even though HE knew better), that the people took cue from their King, and began to act the same.

Truth is not relative, it is subjective. But the facts of life are absolute.

Children never do what you tell them, but they invariably mimic what they see.

v/r

Q

 

[iBrian]

Sacredstar,

Solomon created the idea that he had divine wisdom in order to take power away from the prophets. It minimized everyone else's power and maximized his. He had the people working under forced labor to build the Temple, something there is no evidence they desired. Considering that they were used to tents and also used to worshipping in many places, and also considering that part of the pitch for the Northern Kingdom was letting everybody worship at their ancestral shrines again and no longer be forced to worship only in one place, I don't think any of his wisdom was particularly divine. But as you said, it was often manipulated by those in power to serve them.

Truth is relative.

Dauer

Lol! I never considered this perspective - that Solomon was effectively acting like a centralising dictator, to better control his subjects. Interesting.

 

[Sacredstar]

Dear Quahom1

I guess a lot of mother's know what that means....and the family is a good place for growth as I am sure Jewish families will agree.

Dear Daur

Ah...we see this throughout society don't we. Power abused......

When the power of love
is bigger then the love of power
then peace will reign on earth.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

 

[dauer]

Good morning Dauer,

Solomon was given dominion over a people considered to be the most stubborn on Earth. He knew this, so he asked God for a simple, yet profound and insightful gift.

"Give me an understanding heart to judge your people, that I may know between good and bad...for who is able to judge this great people of yours?" (I Kings 3:9)

This supports me. Solomon couldn't have just said, "I have divine wisdom! Follow me!" He would have had to have created a story that would support his endeavors. That's what propaganda is for. And with such an ignorant populous, he was doing pretty well for himself.

Solomon did not ask for riches, nor health, nor long life, nor women, nor anything for self. He asked for a gift that he could give to God's people.

According to the text he does not ask for riches, but what does he end up taking? The two don't agree. Three important laws:

That the King shall not acquire an excessive number of horses (Deut. 17:16) (negative).
That the King shall not take an excessive number of wives (Deut. 17:17) (negative).
That he shall not accumulate an excessive quantity of gold and silver (Deut. 17:17) (negative).

And if we want to get creative another that applies to him

Not to appoint as ruler over Israel, one who comes from non-Israelites (Deut. 17:15) (negative).

But that one's too much to get into in this thread. Those pastes are from jewfaq. You'll note they're all from the same passage, which may have originally been a polemic against Solomon. I tend to look at how people behave and not what I hear by word-of-mouth that they said in private.

Don't you find it interesting that King Solomon (who drove his people like pack mules), also personally chose to sit in judgement over their individual affairs?

Not if he was styling his court after those of other pagan rulers who had their people present their issues before them.

Consider the two women fighting for custody over the newborn child...He knew the truth of the love within a mother's heart for her child, and caused that truth to surface for all to see. He proved who the biological mother was without benefit of a DNA analysis! He also exposed the depth of extreme a woman who lost a child, would go to, in her agony over that loss.

If you look at it closely, you realize that Solomon did not convict either woman at all. He allowed them to convict themselves.

A propagandistic tale works far better to spread the greatness of one's attributes than anything else. The hasidim know that. Maybe this happened. Maybe it didn't. He certainly was a smart guy, definitely shrewd. That has nothing to do with divine wisdom. Being shrewd can simply mean thinking of number one and doing it well.

His understanding of God's purpose for His people, was not to do as they pleased, worship where they wished, live in tents on the shifting sands. God had a grander plan for His people, whether they liked it or not.

How do you know this? Is it because the narrators tell you to know this? Would you know what the narrators told you to know if you lived in communist russia and read histories of the world?

If you read further in the book of Kings, you'll find that the People of Israel did not suffer under Solomon's reign, they prospered phenominally!

Are we talking about the average Jew or are we talking about the ones at the top of the pyramid? Would you like to serve in forced labor? Are we talking about the glory of HaShem or the glory of Solomon? Certainly HaShem gets mention, but it is Solomon's intellect that attracts attention.

Dauer

 

[Sacredstar]

Dear Dauer

Its so interesting how we all view things differently.

"Solomon did not convict either woman at all. He allowed them to convict themselves."

In my view this is the true wisdom and the Grace of GOD.

To not judge or make judgement, but to allow the darkness to come into the light of day. And to allow humanity to see it for themselves, the darkness of their own ways. Allowing us to be our own judges, through our own conscience and heart of being. As they say 'what comes around goes around' in my view this is the natural and true nature of the universe and the way it is meant to BE.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar