Nabataeans, so-called Umayyads, and the Lycians

by Damien F. Mackey “… it is not surprising to postulate that the Nabataeans reached Lycia which is located within the Mediterranean basin, an area which had close links with the Nabataeans”. Zeyad al-Salameen The so-called Umayyad Caliphate, which is customarily dated to c. 660-750 AD, has been exposed by genuine archaeology as belonging, instead, to the approximate time of Jesus Christ. On this, see e.g. my article: Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology (5) Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology This is also the era of the highly influential Nabataeans, whom professor Gunnar Heinsohn (RIP) had actually identified as Umayyad. On this, see e.g. my article: Supposed C7th-C8th AD Umayyads belong to the Roman Nabataean era (5) Supposed C7th C8th AD Umayyads belong to the Roman Nabataean era The implications of this Umayyad revision, if correct, are mind-bogglingly enormous. In one stroke, stratigraphical archaeology will have wiped out (1) the traditional Mohammed (as a C7th AD character); (2) the closely associated Rashidun Caliphate; and, of course, (3) the Umayyad Caliphate: Oh my, the Umayyads! Deconstructing the Caliphate (5) Oh my, the Umayyads! Deconstructing the Caliphate Obviously this is sufficient to take out traditional Islam at its very roots! Money had nothing to do with the Fall of the Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism, because there never, ever, was such a Golden Age. THE FALL OF THE GOLDEN AGE OF ISLAM – It’s All About the Money. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P6V_AXqCMU On this, see e.g. my article: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (2) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism Whoops, there goes the famous Abbasid Caliphate (c. 750-1260 AD, conventional dating) as well! And there goes Baghdad Madinat al-Salam (“City of Peace”) along with it: Original Baghdad was Jerusalem (2) Original Baghdad was Jerusalem From I Maccabees 5:24-25 we learn that the Nabataeans were contemporaneous with the Jewish Maccabees: Judas Maccabeus and his brother Jonathan crossed the Jordan and made three days’ journey into the wilderness. They encountered the Nabateans, who met them peaceably and told them all that had happened to their kindred in Gilead. Though the Maccabees are conventionally dated to c. 170 BC, significantly before the time of Jesus Christ, I, however, would have Judas Maccabeus as an older contemporary of the Christ Child: Shepherds of Bethlehem and the five Maccabees (3) Shepherds of Bethlehem and the five Maccabees Lycian connection Zeyad al-Salameen has written about “THE NABATAEANS AND LYCIANS” as follows: (3) The Nabataeans and Lycians …. In 2003 the author had the opportunity to discuss the Nabataean relations with other people with professor John Healey who hinted that there was a possible link between the Lycians, who inhabited the southwestern parts of Anatolia by the early first millennium and spoke an Indo-European language and the Nabataeans, who had settled in the northern part of Arabia around the fifth-fourth centuries B.C. (for the geographical locations of Nabataea and Lycia, see, Map 1). This paper will try, therefore, to comprehend this possible link archaeologically. Before we proceed we should identify the Lycians and Nabataeans. WHO WERE THE LYCIANS? The "Lycians" is a name given to the people who inhabited Lycia which is located on the southwestern coast of Asia Minor in Anatolia. It is mentioned in many historical sources. Herodotus states that the Lycians came from Crete under Serapedon, probably through Miletus (Histories 1). They were named after Lycus, the son of Pandion II, king of Athens who was exiled by his brother Aegeus and settled among the Termilae (The Geography of Strabo 14:3.10). Homer states that the Lycian contingent fighting at Troy was said to have been led by two esteemed warriors: Sarpedon and Glaucus (Iliad II). I Macc. 15:23 mentions that Lycia was among the recipients of a letter from the Roman consul Lucius Piso in the second century B.C. regarding the Roman alliance with the Jews. Lycia was under the control of the Persian Empire in 546 B.C. when one of the generals of Cyrus II conquered Asia Minor and they ruled Lycia until 468 BC. Later, it was conquered by Alexander the Great in 333 BC. In 309 BC Ptolemy took over Lycia and during this period Greek culture, art and language were adopted by the Lycians. In 197 B.C. Antiochus III conquered Lycia and the Lycians were granted freedom in 169 BC. Lycia became a Roman province in 46 A.D. Under the Roman rule, Lycia enjoyed relative independence until the time of Augustus (for more details see, Childe 1981: 55-80). The remaining ruins include many rock-cut tombs and dating from the 5th Century B.C. The Lycians cut their tombs in the rock and these tombs bear inscriptions (see for example Schweyer 2002). Almost all the tomb inscriptions are written in two different languages: Greek, which can be dated to the first three centuries of the Roman Empire and Lycian, which are older that the Greek and can be dated to the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. (Pembroke 1965:218). WHO WERE THE NABATAEANS? They were a group of Arabian tribes who settled in Northern Arabia and the southern parts of the Levant during the fifth-fourth centuries B.C. During the period between the second century B.C. and the first century A.D. they established a kingdom that covered modern Jordan, northern Arabia, southern Syria and southern Palestine. Their kingdom came to an end in A.D. 106 when it was annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan (Bowersock 1970: 37-47) Mackey’s comment: But see my proposed earlier dating of Trajan: Hadrianus Traianus Caesar - Trajan transmutes to Hadrian (3) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar - Trajan transmutes to Hadrian Zeyad al-Salameen continues: Petra, the Nabataeans' capital, was an active commercial metropolis receiving goods from various producers such as Arabia, India, East Africa and China. These commodities were then to be distributed to other nations. Archaeological fieldworks in Nabataea provide ample evidence for international and regional interaction. Pottery, coins and inscriptions have been found outside Nabataea including Southern Arabia, the Arabia Gulf, the Mediterranean basin and Italy (For more details see al-Salameen 2004: 45ff). Eastwards the Nabataeans probably reached India, China and Charax. Westwards they reached Greece and Rome and northwards they seem to have reached Phoenicia and Anatolia, as we shall discuss below. Nabataeans are known as merchants who worked as middlemen who controlled and monopolized the trade of aromatics, which were highly prized by the ancients. These commodities were highly esteemed by the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Charecenes and possibly the Lycians. The location of Nabataean and Lycia both help to flourish this trade. Nabataea’s strategic location made it a bridge between the "producers" and the "consumers" of these merchandises. Additionally, the main incense trade passed via these territories. Lycia, on the other hand, was located on the main trade routes between Cyprus and the Levant in the east; Greece and the Anatolian coast in the west; and Egypt to the south (Keen 1998: 31-33). It is located also close to the Greek islands which witnessed Nabataean activities (see map 1). A bilingual inscription was found in Miletus which is not far away from Lycia and dedicated by Syllaeus the Nabataean Minister during his visit to Rome during the last decade of the first century B.C.(Figure 1) (Cantineau 1978:46) Another dated Nabataean inscription was found in Cos island and dedicated the construction of a temple to the goddess al-‘Uzza (Roche 1996:79). Traces of a bilingual Nabataean-Greek inscription have also been discovered in Delos (Schmid 2004: 415-426). The letters of this inscription are somewhat unclear and only a few words can be read and refer to the Nabataean minister Syllaeus of Obodas and probably mention the Nabataean god Dushara (Figure 2) (Roche 1996:83-84). …. In the light of the aforementioned evidence it is not surprising to postulate that the Nabataeans reached Lycia which is located within the Mediterranean basin, an area which had close links with the Nabataeans. The legacy of the Nabataeans is mostly represented in religious heritage. Nabataean tombs and temples are scattered in many areas of their cities which indicate that religion and afterlife played an integral role in their belief. In this article I am not going to go into these aspects but will try to shed some light on the Nabataean tomb inscriptions and their similarities to the Lycian sepulchral inscriptions. Additionally, this paper will try to measure the range of Nabataean-Lycian architectural influence especially in terms of tomb architecture. ….

Jumpin’ Ji-had!

“The Armenian genocide, beginning in 1915, resulted in the death of around one and a half million Armenians, 700,000 Greeks, and 275,000 Assyrians. Says Spencer: “Christian communities that had existed since the beginning of Christianity were wiped out. Constantinople, fifty percent Christian even in 1914, is today 99.99 percent Muslim…. Adolf Hitler was impressed with the brutal efficiency of how the Turks answered their ‘Armenian question’.” Robert Spencer Robert Spencer, a clear and incisive speaker with a better-than-most understanding of Islam, has written some controversial books, such as this one, “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDeXrbqHeDk The following is taken from a 2018 review of another of his books: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/11/21/a-review-of-the-history-of-jihad-by-robert-spencer/ A Review of The History of Jihad. By Robert Spencer. Posted onNov 21, 2018 Bombardier Books, 2018. Robert Spencer is a leading authority on Islam and the challenges and risks it poses to the free West – and the rest of the world. He has written numerous important volumes on Islam, creeping sharia, and Muslim terrorism. In his newest book he offers us a panoramic view of 14 centuries of Islamic bloodshed and killing. As he says in the introduction to his book: There is no period since the beginning of Islam that was characterized by large-scale peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims. There was no time when mainstream and dominant Islamic authorities taught the equality of non-Muslims with Muslims, or the obsolescence of jihad warfare. There was no Era of Good Feeling, no Golden Age of Tolerance, no Paradise of Proto-Multiculturalism. There has always been, with virtually no interruption, jihad. Strong claims. But Spencer spends 400 pages documenting this in great detail. And all this is due to the life and teachings of Muhammad as recorded in the Qur’an, the hadiths, and the sira. Indeed, both of the major schools of Islam, Sunni and Shi’ite, fully affirm the need to kill the infidel if they refuse to convert or be subjugated. Islamic terror goes back to day one of Islam. As Muhammad said on his deathbed: “I have been made victorious with terror.” Spencer remarks, “It was a fitting summation of his entire public career.” Thus the first chapter of this vital book looks carefully at the role jihad played in the life of Islam’s founder. It is not a pretty read. Damien Mackey’s comment: It needs to be noted that Robert Spencer has, in his book, “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?”, queried the very historical existence of Mohammed, writing, there is "considerable reason to question the historicity of Muhammad." I, myself, have zero belief in the historical reality of Mohammed who was, as I have argued, a fictitious composite. See my various articles on the subject, including: Firmly standing by my opinion on Mohammed (5) Firmly standing by my opinion on Mohammed Robert Spencer continues: And since Muhammad is regarded as the perfect example for all Muslims to follow, his bloodthirsty ways were carefully emulated by his devout adherents ever since. Spreading the faith by the edge of the sword was forever to be standard Muslim practice. Thus by the end of the seventh century, just decades after Muhammad’s death, authoritarian Muslim control extended from North Africa to Central Asia. And the spread of Islam continued apace over the next few centuries. The conquest of Spain and India followed, and the body count continued to mount up. Damien Mackey’s comment: Some of the supposed ‘history’ that follows, needs to be, I think, subjected to some serious forensic scrutiny. Robert Spencer continues: So too did slavery, destruction, bloodshed and dhimmitude. The gory details of ruthless Islamic oppression in these and other regions are carefully related by Spencer, usually relying on accounts written during the time. And the many stories of the enslavement and persecution and pogroms against Christians and Jews make up a big part of all this. While the phrase ‘streets running with rivers of blood’ may involve some poetic license, more than once we read of this being the outcome of Islamic slaughter and carnage. For example, Spencer cites historian Steven Runciman regarding the fall of Constantinople in May of 1453: The Muslims “slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit.” Or consider one contemporary Muslim account of the jihad against Hindus in India in the 14th century. Some 100,000 men had taken refuge on an island along with their families. The Muslims transformed “the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers…. Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service at the house of every soldier.” The Islamic warlord Tamerlane, who actually penned an autobiography, spoke of his dilemma as to what to do with a large horde of Hindu prisoners. He went with an easy option, saying this: “One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.” Moving to more recent times, consider the treatment of the Christian Armenians. Late in 1894 a massacre lasting 24 days wiped out 25 villages. People were burned alive, and pregnant women were ripped open and their babies torn to pieces. But much worse was to come. The Armenian genocide, beginning in 1915, resulted in the death of around one and a half million Armenians, 700,000 Greeks, and 275,000 Assyrians. Says Spencer: “Christian communities that had existed since the beginning of Christianity were wiped out. Constantinople, fifty percent Christian even in 1914, is today 99.99 percent Muslim…. Adolf Hitler was impressed with the brutal efficiency of how the Turks answered their ‘Armenian question’.” He also looks at the Islamic war against Israel. He recounts how the Soviet KGB invented the fiction of the Palestinian people (there long had been a region known by the name of Palestine, but never a people or an ethnicity). The Soviets also helped to form the PLO and carefully mentored Arafat to do their bidding. Spencer quotes a PLO leader who said in 1977, “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state was only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.” He also discusses the formation of Hamas in 1988 and its determination to wipe Israel off the map. He brings things right up to date, looking at Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and September 11. And he reminds us how harmful policies of appeasement and Islamophilia have been in the West. For example, the Catholic church which was once on “the forefront of resistance to the jihad for centuries” has begun to cave, especially under the current Pope, who has become an avid defender of Islam and the Qur’an. And of course leaders like Obama were committed to being apologists for Islam, seeking to advance their cause at home and abroad. Thankfully today much of this is being turned around. As Spencer reminds us, “at its height, the Islamic State controlled a territory larger than Great Britain… [But] within a year of the beginning of the Trump presidency, the Islamic State had lost ninety-eight percent of its territory.” All up this book makes for sickening and gruesome reading. Here we have example after example of 1400 years of bloodshed, murder, rape, pillaging, enslavement and terror – all proudly and decidedly done in the name of Islam. The simple truth is this: the history of Islam is the history of jihad. When Muslim jihadists screaming “Allahu Akbar” mow down innocent men, women and children on the streets and sidewalks of Nice or London, or stab them to death in Brussels or Melbourne, they are simply doing what Islam has always done. Their acts of terrorism are simply a continuation of what Muhammad began, and what has always been the MO of the political ideology known as Islam. We all owe Robert Spencer a debt of gratitude for bringing together in one volume this stomach-turning but necessary story of what Islam really is all about. Just as there were countless “useful idiots” who promoted and made excuses for godless, totalitarian communism, so too there are also plenty of apologists for, and clueless defenders of, the deadly political ideology of Islam. Hopefully this book will help to change that to some extent.

Supposed C7th-C8th AD Umayyads belong to the Roman-Nabataean era

“The Greek language, adopted by the Nabataeans in the 1st c. CE, is –– with no discernible evolution –– employed some 700 years later for Umayyad inscriptions of the 8th century.”. Gunnar Heinsohn We read at: file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/arabs-8th-century-heinsohn-04-2018%20(2).pdf the late professor Gunnar Heinsohn’s piece on: … Are Nabataean and Umayyad art styles really 700 years apart? So, who was capable to place 15 m deep cement foundations under Jerusalem's Umayyad palaces in front of the Temple Hill? Whose Arabic realm was located close enough to the Holy City to built [sic] there in such a massive way? Who were the Arabs well known for alliances with Jews (e.g., Maccabees against Seleucids)? Only the Nabataeans fit that profile. The Greek language, adopted by the Nabataeans in the 1st c. CE, is –– with no discernible evolution –– employed some 700 years later for Umayyad inscriptions of the 8th century. Umayyad soldiers were dressed in Greek fashion. They used the ballista (arradah) as artillery although its technology was more than 700 years old. At Tiberias, they are on record for having been stratigraphic bedfellows of 700 years earlier Romans, blossoming right after Hellenism of the 1st c. BCE: “During the course of a dig designed to facilitate the expansion of the Galei Kinneret Hotel, Hartal noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750[CE]), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132[CE]). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation - two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side’, says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded’.” (Barkat 2003). Damien Mackey’s comment: On this, see e.g. my article: Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology (4) Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology Reconstruction of several of the six Umayyad Palaces (with 15 m deep cement foundations) that were, completely unexpected, discovered in the 1970s near the Western and Southern walls of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. Herodian, Roman, and Byzantine urban strata beneath the palaces are occasionally claimed but were never verified -- either here or anywhere else! Since no Abbasid palaces have been found super-imposed on Jerusalem’s Umayyad palaces (only Abbasid “repairs” are claimed), the two Early Medieval Arab dynasties must have overlapped in the 8th -10th century period. [http://siramuharafa.blogspot.com/2015/06/blog-post_3.html] [http://siramuharafa.blogspot.com/2015/06/blog-post_3.html] [Go to original article] Eventually, the Israeli scholars decided to invoke a geological miracle to obey Christian chronology and, at the same time, make sense of the stratigraphy of Tiberias. That mover of a higher order was identified as a mega-earthquake of 749 CE afflicting all the lands from Damascus to Egypt. With surgical precision that desaster [sic] had pushed the 1st c. BCE ff. Roman material upwards until it stopped precisely at the Umayyad level of the 7th/8th c. ff. CE. The Arab material, however, was kept in its position in such a wondrous manner that the Roman material was neither allowed to stop inappropriately below nor to move inappropriately above the Arab material believed to have arrived some 700 years later. Yet, all the stratigraphic evidence does really show (for the period preceding the catastrophe that drowned the 2nd/3rd. c. CE Roman theatre of Tiberias) is the contemporaneity of 7th/8th ff. c. CE Arabs and 1st c. BCE to 2nd c. CE Romans. Thus, Early Medieval Umayyads followed as directly after Late Hellenisms (=Late Roman Republic = Late Latène of the 1st c. BCE) as Roman Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd c. CE). However, misled by their stern belief in textbook chronology archaeologists have, time and again, distorted the situation laid bare by excavations to match their pre-conceived dates. Yet, the time to allow stratigraphy its say may be closer than ever. A recent example for such fresh openness is provided by Bet Yerah on the southern tip of Lake Kinnereth. For decades, a large fortified enclosure on this site (sector SA on the map below) was misidentified as a synagogue from Byzantine Late Antiquity (4th6th c.). Yet fresh excavations completed in 2013 point to the Umayyad qasr (castrum) of al-Sinnabra from the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th c.). That fortress cuts through the site’s Hellenistic walls whose period is dated some 700 years earlier. Even the name of the place, Al-Sinnabra or Sinn en-Nabra (Umayyad Arabic), is still the same as in Hellenistic times (700 years earlier) when it was known as Sennabris (Greek): “Post-Hellenistic presence on Tel Bet Yeraḥ was quite limited in extent and did not produce massive deposits. Early excavators reported Roman remains, but virtually nothing of this period can be identified in the remaining collections. Byzantine occupation appears to be limited to the church excavated and published by Delougaz and Haines” (Greenberg/Tal/Da’adli 2017, 1). Contiguous Hellenistic and Early Islamic remains, supposedly 700 years apart, were excavated all over the site. In a sounding of tower four, “we found that its foundation trench cut several walls of Hellenistic and Early Bronze date”. The western wall of tower five “was founded on an earlier Hellenistic wall”. Tower six covered a “portion of a water channel that appears to have drained the fortified area. The soil inside the channel was reported to contain ‘Roman’ glass and pottery” (all quotes from Da’adli 2017 b). Such Roman remains of Imperial Antiquity (1st -3 rd c.) are, indeed, to be expected on top of Late Hellenism buildings (ending in the 1 st c. BCE). Yet, they are contemporary with the Umayyad Early Middle Ages (8th -10th c.), too. No less intriguing are the mosaics of the Umayyad audience basilica. Stratigraphically, they belong to Bet Yerah’s Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd c. CE succeeding Hellenistic 1st c. BCE). Yet, they are very similar to Late Antique mosaics from “the second half of the fifth century CE” (Lower Chapel at Khirbat al-Mukhayyat [Mount Nebo]) as well as from “535-536” (Saint George at Kh. al-Mukhayyat). Finally, they resemble Early Medieval mosaics from the “eighth century CE” (Jabalal-Akhdar chapel at Amman) as well as the “eighth/ninth centuries” (Ramla; all quotes from Da’adli 2017 b). Thus, the mosaics belong to three periods at the same time: (1) Imperial Antiquity (in stratigraphy), (2) Late Antiquity (in style), and (3) Early Middle Ages (in style). They can do this only if all three periods represent facets of the 8th-10th c. time-span. A search for Arabs of the Hellenistic period, directly preceding 700 years later Ummayads, in and around Israel/Palestine, again, lands at the Nabataeans. Though they acted as vital players between Egypt and Syria, they were suddenly and mysteriously forgotten around the 1st/2nd c. CE. No less mysteriously striking similarities between images of Nabataean and Umayyad sculptures over a 700-year period have long been seen by art historians (e.g., Avi-Jonah 1942). Indeed, there are "close relations between the art of Ahnas and the Nabataean sculptural school reflected at Khirbat et Tannur. Despite the time gap between the sites, this affinity cannot be fortuitous" (Talgam 2004,100). ….

What has the Saudi government been up to at Mecca and Medina?

“Photographs obtained by The Independent reveal how workers with drills and mechanical diggers have started demolishing some Ottoman and Abbasid sections on the eastern side of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca”. Taken from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-photos-saudi-arabia-doesn-t-want-seen-and-proof-islams-most-holy-relics-are-being-demolished-in-mecca-8536968.html The photos Saudi Arabia doesn't want seen – and proof Islam's most holy relics are being demolished in Mecca Archaeologists fear billion-pound development has led to destruction of key historical sites Jerome Taylor Friday 15 March 2013 …. The authorities in Saudi Arabia have begun dismantling some of the oldest sections of Islam’s most important mosque as part of a highly controversial multi-billion pound expansion. Photographs obtained by The Independent reveal how workers with drills and mechanical diggers have started demolishing some Ottoman and Abbasid sections on the eastern side of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. The building, which is also known as the Grand Mosque, is the holiest site in Islam because it contains the Kaaba – the point to which all Muslims face when praying. The columns are the last remaining sections of the mosque which date back more than a few hundred years and form the inner perimeter on the outskirts of the white marble floor surrounding the Kaaba. The new photos … have caused alarm among archaeologists …. Many of the Ottoman and Abbasid columns in Mecca were inscribed with intricate Arabic calligraphy marking the names of the Prophet Muhammad’s companions and key moments in his life. One column which is believed to have been ripped down is supposed to mark the spot where Muslims believe Muhammad began his heavenly journey on a winged horse, which took him to Jerusalem and heaven in a single night. To accommodate the ever increasing number of pilgrims heading to the twin holy cities of Mecca and Medina each year the Saudi authorities have embarked upon a massive expansion project. Billions of pounds have been poured in to increase the capacity of the Masjid al-Haram and the Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina which marks where Muhammad is buried. King Abdullah has put the prominent Wahabi cleric and imam of the Grand Mosque, Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, in charge of the expansion while the Saudi Binladin Group – one of the country’s largest firms – has won the construction contract. While there is little disagreement over the need to expand, critics have accused the Saudi regime of wantonly disregarding the archaeological, historical and cultural heritage of Islam’s two holiest cities. In the last decade Mecca has been transformed from a dusty desert pilgrimage town into a gleaming metropolis of skyscrapers that tower over the Masjid al-Haram and are filled with a myriad of shopping malls, luxury apartments and five star hotels. …. But such a transformation has come at a cost. The Washington-based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 per cent of Mecca's millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades alone. Dozens of key historical sites dating back to the birth of Islam have already been lost and there is a scramble among archaeologists and academics to try and encourage the authorities to preserve what little remains. Many senior Wahabis are vehemently against the preservation of historical Islamic sites that are linked to the prophet because they believe it encourages shirk – the sin of idol worshipping. But Dr Irfan al-Alawi, executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation which obtained the new photographs from inside the Grand Mosque, says the removal of the Ottoman and Abbasid columns will leave future generations of Muslims ignorant of their significance. “It matters because many of these columns signified certain areas of the mosque where the Prophet sat and prayed,” he said. “The historical record is being deleted. A new Muslim would never have a clue because there’s nothing marking these locations now. There are ways you could expand Mecca and Medina while protecting the historical heritage of the mosque itself and the surrounding sites.” There are signs that King Abdullah has listened to concerns about the historical destruction of Mecca and Medina. Last October The Independent revealed how new plans for the masjid an-Nabawi in Medina would result in the destruction of three of the world’s oldest mosques on the west hand side of the main complex. However new plans approved by King Abdullah last week appear to show a change of heart with the bulk of the expansion now slated to take place to the north of the Masjid an-Nabawi. However key sites are still at risk. The Independent has obtained a presentation used by the Saudis to illustrate how the expansion of Mecca’s main mosque will look. In one of the slides it is clear that the Bayt al-Mawlid, an area which is believed to be the house where Muhammad was born in, will have to be removed unless plans change. The Independent asked the Saudi Embassy in London a number of questions about the expansion plans and why more was not being done to preserve key historical sites. They replied: “Thank you for calling, but no comment.” And we read at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/medina-saudis-take-a-bulldozer-to-islam-s-history-8228795.html Medina: Saudis take a bulldozer to Islam's history Authorities are building a mosque so big it will hold 1.6m people – but are demolishing irreplaceable monuments to do it Jerome Taylor Friday 26 October 2012 …. Three of the world’s oldest mosques are about to be destroyed as Saudi Arabia embarks on a multi-billion-pound expansion of Islam’s second holiest site. Work on the Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina, where the Prophet Mohamed is buried, will start once the annual Hajj pilgrimage ends next month. When complete, the development will turn the mosque into the world’s largest building, with the capacity for 1.6 million worshippers. But concerns have been raised that the development will see key historic sites bulldozed. Anger is already growing at the kingdom’s apparent disdain for preserving the historical and archaeological heritage of the country’s holiest city, Mecca. Most of the expansion of Masjid an-Nabawi will take place to the west of the existing mosque, which holds the tombs of Islam’s founder and two of his closest companions, Abu Bakr and Umar. Just outside the western walls of the current compound are mosques dedicated to Abu Bakr and Umar, as well as the Masjid Ghamama, built to mark the spot where the Prophet is thought to have given his first prayers for the Eid festival. The Saudis have announced no plans to preserve or move the three mosques, which have existed since the seventh century and are covered by Ottoman-era structures, or to commission archaeological digs before they are pulled down, something that has caused considerable concern among the few academics who are willing to speak out in the deeply authoritarian kingdom. “No one denies that Medina is in need of expansion, but it’s the way the authorities are going about it which is so worrying,” says Dr Irfan al-Alawi of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation. “There are ways they could expand which would either avoid or preserve the ancient Islamic sites but instead they want to knock it all down.” Dr Alawi has spent much of the past 10 years trying to highlight the destruction of early Islamic sites. With cheap air travel and booming middle classes in populous Muslim countries within the developing world, both Mecca and Medina are struggling to cope with the 12 million pilgrims who visit each year – a number expected to grow to 17 million by 2025. The Saudi monarchy views itself as the sole authority to decide what should happen to the cradle of Islam. Although it has earmarked billions for an enormous expansion of both Mecca and Medina, it also sees the holy cities as lucrative for a country almost entirely reliant on its finite oil wealth. Heritage campaigners and many locals have looked on aghast as the historic sections of Mecca and Medina have been bulldozed to make way for gleaming shopping malls, luxury hotels and enormous skyscrapers. The Washington-based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 per cent of the 1,000-year-old buildings in the two cities have been destroyed in the past 20 years. In Mecca, the Masjid al-Haram, the holiest site in Islam and a place where all Muslims are supposed to be equal, is now overshadowed by the Jabal Omar complex, a development of skyscraper apartments, hotels and an enormous clock tower. To build it, the Saudi authorities destroyed the Ottoman era Ajyad Fortress and the hill it stood on. Other historic sites lost include the Prophet’s birthplace – now a library – and the house of his first wife, Khadijah, which was replaced with a public toilet block. Neither the Saudi Embassy in London nor the Ministry for Foreign Affairs responded to requests for comment when The Independent contacted them this week. But the government has previously defended its expansion plans for the two holy cities as necessary. It insists it has also built large numbers of budget hotels for poorer pilgrims, though critics point out these are routinely placed many miles away from the holy sites. Until recently, redevelopment in Medina has pressed ahead at a slightly less frenetic pace than in Mecca, although a number of early Islamic sites have still been lost. Of the seven ancient mosques built to commemorate the Battle of the Trench – a key moment in the development of Islam – only two remain. Ten years ago, a mosque which belonged to the Prophet’s grandson was dynamited. Pictures of the demolition that were secretly taken and smuggled out of the kingdom showed the religious police celebrating as the building collapsed. The disregard for Islam’s early history is partly explained by the regime’s adoption of Wahabism, an austere and uncompromising interpretation of Islam that is vehemently opposed to anything which might encourage Muslims towards idol worship. In most of the Muslim world, shrines have been built. Visits to graves are also commonplace. But Wahabism views such practices with disdain. The religious police go to enormous lengths to discourage people from praying at or visiting places closely connected to the time of the Prophet while powerful clerics work behind the scenes to promote the destruction of historic sites. Dr Alawi fears that the redevelopment of the Masjid an-Nabawi is part of a wider drive to shift focus away from the place where Mohamed is buried. The spot that marks the Prophet’s tomb is covered by a famous green dome and forms the centrepiece of the current mosque. But under the new plans, it will become the east wing of a building eight times its current size with a new pulpit. There are also plans to demolish the prayer niche at the centre of mosque. The area forms part of the Riyadh al-Jannah (Garden of Paradise), a section of the mosque that the Prophet decreed especially holy. “Their excuse is they want to make more room and create 20 spaces in a mosque that will eventually hold 1.6 million,” says Dr Alawi. “It makes no sense. What they really want is to move the focus away from where the Prophet is buried.” A pamphlet published in 2007 by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs – and endorsed by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz al Sheikh – called for the dome to be demolished and the graves of Mohamed, Abu Bakr and Umar to be flattened. Sheikh Ibn al-Uthaymeen, one of the 20th century’s most prolific Wahabi scholars, made similar demands. “Muslim silence over the destruction of Mecca and Medina is both disastrous and hypocritical,” says Dr Alawi. “The recent movie about the Prophet Mohamed caused worldwide protests... and yet the destruction of the Prophet’s birthplace, where he prayed and founded Islam has been allowed to continue without any criticism.” Mecca and Medina in numbers 12m The number of people who visit Mecca and Medina every year 3.4m The number of Muslims expected to perform Hajj (pilgrimage) this year 600,000 The current capacity of the Masjid an-Nabawi mosque 1.6m The projected capacity of the mosque after expansion

Suspect archaeology of Mecca

Access is being denied to certain key archaeological sites and finds. 1. We read of it in the case of Göbekli Tepe in Turkey and we saw the photos: World Economic Forum puts lid on Gobekli Tepe (2) World Economic Forum puts lid on Gobekli Tepe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BXsMgp8KLc The Gobekli Tepe “Situation” is WORSE Than I Thought 2. We read of it in the case of Ebla in Syria, for example: Scandal of Ebla https://www.academia.edu/67727873/Scandal_of_Ebla 3. And Dr. Jay Smith has told of the same sort of thing happening in relation to Mecca and Medina. Read also this article: What has the Saudi government been up to at Mecca and Medina? https://www.academia.edu/126799391/What_has_the_Saudi_government_been_up_to_at_Mecca_and_Medina Agenda-driven powers that be, or local authorities, are concreting over, censoring, and taking away reasonable access to, some highly significant archaeological sites. In light of all this, I (Damien Mackey) was interested to come across an article (2021) by Daniel Janosik, entitled, “If Mecca Did Not Exist in the Time of Muhammad, then Who Was Muhammad and Where Did He Live?”, in which the author deals with the archaeology of Mecca – similar to what I have heard on Dr. Jay Smith’s videos. Here are some relevant parts of that important article: (2) If Mecca Did Not Exist in the Time of Muhammad, then Who Was Muhammad and Where Did He Live Introduction Muslims claim that Muhammad was born in Mecca and the earliest parts of the Qur’an were revealed to him there. Indeed, without Mecca the whole story of Muhammad would have to be re-evaluated and the very foundations of Islam would have to be questioned. However, recent archaeological and historical research calls into question whether Mecca even existed in the traditional time of Muhammad (570-632 AD). There are no archaeological artifacts from Mecca until the 8th century AD, the first direct mention of Mecca in external literature occurs in 741 AD, and the first time Mecca is listed on a map of the Middle East was 900 AD. Mackey’s comment: Dr. Jay Smith, too, will, like this author, refer to the C7th, C8th and C9th’s AD as if this were relevant. In the context of the non-existent Mohammed and, e.g., the Umayyad Caliphate, however, I find that this only confuses the very things that they are hoping to clarify. See e.g. my article: Oh my, the Umayyads! Deconstructing the Caliphate https://www.academia.edu/117122001/Oh_my_the_Umayyads_Deconstructing_the_Caliphate Daniel Janosik continues: Indeed, if Mecca did not exist in the early 7th century, then who was Muhammad and from where did he come? This paper will consider the Muslim evidence for the existence of Mecca in light of the research of a number of recent scholars who have suggested that Mecca was probably neither a center of trade nor a religious center or pilgrimage site in the 7th century. One issue for consideration is that the geographical descriptions of the city of the prophet in the Qur’an do not match up with the barren landscape of Mecca. Furthermore, the qiblas, or the direction of prayer in the mosques, did not point to Mecca until 727 AD. The evidence also may indicate that Muhammad probably did not have anything to do with Mecca, especially since it may not have even existed at that time. Finally, a mounting body of evidence suggests that the Nabataean kingdom of Petra in Northeast Arabia might have actually been the center of the origin of Islam, and Muhammad a much different religious leader than the one traditionally portrayed by Islam. Muslim Claims about Mecca Muslims believe that Mecca is the “mother of all cities” (Q. 6:92; 42:7) and tradition states that it goes back to the first home for Adam and Eve after they were cast out of heaven (Q. 7:24). Later, around 2,000 BC, Abraham and his eldest son, Ishmael, repaired the Ka’ba in order to worship God (Q. 21:51-71). Subsequently, according to Islam, in the time before Muhammad, Mecca had become a center of idolatry during the “Age of Ignorance.” To correct this injustice and put man on the “right path,” Allah raised up the prophet Muhammad, and through his leadership the city was restored as a center of Muslim worship as well as the most important city in the Islamic world. Muslims claim that Muhammad lived in Mecca from 570 AD to 622 and died in Medina in 632. Islamic tradition states that after his death all mosques began to face Mecca. Muslims also claim that Mecca was the center of trade and caravans would take a detour from the main route in order to worship at the Ka’ba. If all of this is true, Mecca should be one of the best known and best documented cities in history. Even though the name “Mecca” is only mentioned in the Qur’an once (Q. 48:24), Muslims believe that inferences to “Mecca” in the Qur’an and the Hadith indicate that the city is not only the center of Islam, but also the center of history. Therefore, many anonymous and indistinct references to locations mentioned in the Qur’an are assumed to refer to Mecca. For example, as mentioned above, Muslims believe that [Mecca] … is the “mother of all settlements,” or the “mother of all cities” (Q. 6:92; 42:7), and therefore must have existed from the time of Adam and Eve (Q. 7:24). They also believe that [Mecca] is also referred to as “the place of the prophet” (assuming that the “prophet” must refer to Muhammad), and has a number of geographical and vegetative characteristics that are listed in the Qur’an. These inferences describe [Mecca] as being in a valley with a parallel valley (Ibn Hisham; Al Bukhari 2:645, 2:685, 3:891, 2:815, 2:820, 4:227), with a stream near the Ka’ba (Al Bukhari 2:685), with ruins outside the city, and a pillar of ‘salt’ nearby (Q. 37:133-138; referring to Lot’s wife). The city is also surrounded by fields (Al Bukhari 9:337), has trees (Sahih al-Tirmidhi 1535), including olive trees (Q. 6:141; Q. 16; Q. 80), grass (al Bukhari 9:337), fruit (Al Bukhari 4:281), clay and loam (Al Tabari VI 1079 p.6). The city is also described as having mountains close enough so that they overlook the Ka’ba (Ibn Hisham; Al Bukhari 2:645, 2:685, 3:891, 2:815, 2:820, 4:227). However, as we shall see later, the actual city of Mecca is not in a valley, and has none of these horticultural assets listed above, mainly because it is in a desert where it is just too arid and dry for these things to survive. Is it possible that the Qur’an and these Hadith are actually describing a different city in a location far away? The Standard Islamic Traditions also indicate that [Mecca] is the burial place of many of the biblical prophets. This list would include Adam and Eve, their son Seth, Ishmael, Noah, Hud (the great-great grandson of Noah), Salih (the grandfather of Hagar), the Queen of Sheba, the prophet Daniel, as well as up to 300 other prophets. According to the various sources, these people all would have lived for some time in Mecca, or died there. This would mean that parts of the Bible would come into question and the focus of the stories would need to be re-directed 600 miles further south. However, while there is much historical and archaeological evidence to corroborate the Biblical narrative, there is almost nothing to support these claims of Islam. In addition, if all these prophets died and were buried in Mecca, then where are their graves and their remains? …. The Archaeological Considerations Whenever new construction is considered in ancient cities like Jerusalem and Damascus, archaeologists are called in to make sure that historic sites are not disturbed, or, if discoveries are made of ancient artifacts, these records of the past can be collected and preserved. However, this apparently is not the case with Mecca. Recently, Muhammad’s traditional birthplace, the house of Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife, the house of Abu Bakr, as well as a number of the earliest known mosques and tombs have been destroyed in Mecca. In fact, an estimated 95% of the historic buildings in Mecca have been destroyed since 1985. …. The reason that is given is either that these historical sites are being destroyed so that Muslims will not worship them, or, more pragmatically, that these sites need to be removed in order to make more room for hotels, parking lots, and even bathrooms for the growing number of pilgrims swarming to Mecca during the annual Hajj. However, a more sinister reason may be that these earliest remnants of Muhammad and the origins of Islam in the city may be disappearing because they did not exist as early as the 6th or 7th century. The Saudi government does not allow archaeological work to be performed in Mecca or Medina. This may be simply a “coverup” for a lack of archaeological evidence that could be used to support the existence of Mecca in the time of Muhammad. When Dan Gibson, a veteran archaeologist of many years in the Middle East, attended a conference on Nabataean Studies in Petra in 2002, he asked leading archaeologists from Saudi Arabia and Jordan about the archaeological record in Mecca. He was very surprised when “they admitted there was no archaeological record in Mecca before 800 AD.” …. If this is an accurate assessment by the Arab archaeologists in regard to Mecca in the time of Muhammad, then the real reason for the destruction of so many of the historical sites that supposedly link back to Muhammad may be that these buildings and mosques did not exist in the 7th and 8th centuries …. Therefore, destroying evidence that would undermine the historicity of Islam would be necessary to protect their historical claims. Peter Townsend points out that Muslims accept the concept that “history underpins every aspect of Muslim faith.” …. However, Townsend also reminds us that “when we study the inscriptions, documents and archaeological evidence produced by Mecca’s Arab near-neighbors and the imperial powers that dominated the ancient Near-East (Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, and Roman), we do not find a single reference to Mecca.” ….

Jesus as Temple

by Damien F. Mackey "And the Word became flesh and Tabernacled among us". John 1:14 Introduction Some non-Christians, such as the Moslem scholar Dr Ali Ataie (Christian Zionism: a Major Oxymoron), are emphasising that the Christian Zionists are going against the New Testament by hoping to hasten the end times and the Final Coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, by re-building the (third) Temple in Jerusalem. For, as these non-Christians rightly say, Jesus had claimed of the old Temple that “not one stone here will be left on another” (Mark 13:2), and that He himself was now the Temple. In this way, such non-Christians have read the New Testament far more accurately than have the Christian Zionists, who are succeeding only in emptying the Scriptures of their true meaning. A completely new age had been ushered in with the return of Jesus, as He said, to bring fiery Justice upon the evil and adulterous generation that had crucified Him (cf. Malachi 3:5: “I will come to you in judgment ....”). The land of Israel was ravaged and burned, its capital city of Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple was totally eradicated, and those thousands of Jews who were not killed were taken away into captivity. That physically severed forever the ancient Abrahamic connection between the Jews and the Holy Land. The far more important spiritual connection with Abraham, based on Faith, a pre-requisite for the possession of the Holy Land, had already been shattered. So much so that Jesus, when the Jews boasted of having Abraham for their father, insisted that the Devil, not Abraham, was the father of the prophet-slaying Jews. 'You belong to your father the Devil' (John 8:44). Saint Paul in Galatians makes it quite clear that the connection with Abraham is only through Jesus Christ, the “seed” of Abraham (3:29): “And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise”. The straw that broke the camel's back would be the rejection of, and murder of, the Prophet of Prophets himself, Jesus the Christ. It is sad and quite frustrating to see pious Jews now reverencing a large Roman wall situated well away from where the Jerusalem Temples had stood, and hopefully expecting the Messiah to arrive in Jerusalem in the not too distant future. Nor is it any good that Zionists - including the Christian version of these - a very powerful and wealthy lobby, have that same goal of re-building the stone Temple (in the wrong place, it must be said), to welcome the Messiah, or Jesus (depending on whether one is Jewish or Christian). Pope Pius X and Zionism Does Zionism have a place? Not according to the reaction of pope Saint Pius X, who replied to Theodor Herzl in a meeting in 1904: https://catholicism.org/the-zionist-and-the-saint.html …. The pope was Saint Pius X. According to Herzl’s diaries, when asked to support a Jewish settlement in Palestine, the saint “answered in a stern and categorical manner: ‘We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem — but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people.’ That is not to say that the popes are anti-semitic, a separate issue. Pope Pius XI would remind Catholics (via a group of Belgian pilgrims) back in 1938, in the face of tyrannical pressure being exerted upon the Jews, 'We are spiritually Semites'. And the Church favourably included the Jews (and Muslims) in the Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate. {I have difficulty with the restriction of the term, Semitic, to merely the culturally Jewish people. Plenty of others are of Semitic origins. Added to that, we no longer know, since c. 70 AD, who of those claiming to be Jews, and who are culturally Jewish, are actually ethnically Jewish}. ‘Destroy this Temple’ The pivotal biblical association of Jesus with the Temple was, of course, the incident of his cleansing of the sacred place from the money-changers. This led to his assertion: ‘Destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in three days’ (John 2:19). And, though it had taken 46 years to build the last stone Temple (2:20), the Word is timeless. The Apostles realised that Jesus was speaking of the Temple of his very body (John 2:21-22). Jesus is the new Temple, a spiritual Temple that neither Gog and Magog, the Babylonians, the Romans, nor renegade Jewish zealots, would be able to quench. So, even if the modern Zionists do achieve their aim of building a temple complete with priests and animal sacrifices, again completely against the New Testament that has Jesus as the true High Priest (Hebrews 4:14) making the one and only sacrifice - and which temple will be situated in quite the wrong place anyway, and so not geographically legitimate - it will all be completely futile and irrelevant in the great cosmic scheme of things. And it will not succeed in luring the true Messiah. “Tabernacled Among Us” No wonder that Jesus was wont to go all the way back to Moses to explain himself (Luke 24:27). His human existence, moving amongst his people, had been foreshadowed back in the time of Moses, in the Pentateuch, by the moveable Tent of Meeting, or Tabernacle. Exodus 33:7-11: Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the “tent of meeting.” Anyone inquiring of the LORD would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the LORD spoke with Moses. Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to their tent. The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. Jesus, too, was often on the move among the people. Saint John picks this up in his Gospel by likening the Word's human existence, dwelling on earth, to being Tabernacled (ἐσκήνωσεν). That is the literal meaning of the text, and it is meant to recall the Tent of Meeting which contained the glorious Ark of the Covenant with its mercy seat, the Menorah, and the shew bread. Centuries before (cf. I Kings 6:1) King Solomon would successfully build the fixed Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, the Lord's dwelling amongst the people of Israel was to be, for centuries, this moveable Tent. “Glory of the Lord” “God was at the centre. Surrounding the Tent were the Levites. And around the Levites were the 12 tribes of Israel” (cf. Numbers 2:2). Wherever nomadic Israel was, encamped around the Tent to which were aligned the twelve tribes of Israel, there was to be seen the shining Pillar of Fire, the Kavod Yahweh, “Glory of the Lord”. The shining Cloud is popularly (but not biblically) known as the Shekinah. When King Solomon built the Temple of Yahweh, the Glory Cloud came and rested upon the Temple as a sign to Israel that this was where God dwelt upon earth (2 Chronicles 7:1-2): “When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the Temple. The priests could not enter the Temple of the LORD because the glory of the LORD filled it”. But, centuries later, after Israel had malevolently apostatised, and just prior to the first destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians, the prophet Ezekiel saw the Glory Cloud (the Lord) depart from the Temple (Ezekiel 10:18): "Then the Glory of the Lord departed from over the threshold of the Temple ...". Israel was now on its own. It appears that the Kavod Yahweh did not return even after the exiles from Babylon had rebuilt the second Temple, goaded on by Haggai and Zechariah. Those old enough to remember the former Temple wept (Ezra 3:12; cf. Tobit 14:5). But the prophet Haggai - who, as I need to point out for what will follow, was Tobias (= Job) the son of Tobit, Tobias having been given the Akkadian name, Habakkuk (shortened by the Jews to Haggai) - seemed confident that Kavod Yahweh would eventually return and that the Temple in Jerusalem would be even greater than before (Haggai 2:6-7). But this outlook has Messianic ramifications (cf. Malachi 3:1). The alignment of the twelve tribes of Israel to the ancient Tent of Meeting, and to the later Temple built by King Solomon, anticipated Jesus and his twelve Apostles, upon whom the New Jerusalem was to be built (Revelation 21:19). Nativity and the “Glory of the Lord” Biblical scholars wonder: Why does Luke refer to the Shepherds but not the Magi, and Matthew, to the Magi but not the Shepherds? Some have even tried to tie together all in one the Shepherds-as-the-Magi - a thesis that had really grabbed my interest for a while. The connecting link between Luke and Matthew here is the Kavod Yahweh. The Magi knew that what they had seen was His star because it was the Kavod Yahweh returning to Jerusalem, as their ancestors had foretold, with the birth of the King of the Jews. What the Magi saw was the same glorious manifestation of light that the Shepherds likewise had seen at the Nativity. The Magi possibly delayed their trip significantly to allow for the Christ Child to grow and so take his rightful place seated in Jerusalem. (They would well have known from Micah 5:2, however, that the Nativity was to occur in Bethlehem). That is why the Magi eventually headed for Jerusalem not led by the Star, which they saw again only after they had left King Herod. It led them to “the house”” (no longer the stable) (Matthew 2:9). So, just as the Kavod Yahweh would lead the Israelites through the wilderness, and would stop wherever they needed to halt, so did the same Kavod Yahweh now lead the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and stop. This can be no regular star because it stopped. It was a guiding Cloud of Light, the Glory of the Lord. One could say, it follows the Lamb wherever He goes. It was still associated with the infant Jesus when He appeared to Sister Lucia on a shining cloud at Pontevedra (Spain) in 1925, to request the Communion of Reparation (the Five First Saturdays), whose 100th anniversary we will be celebrating next year, 2025, the Jubilee Year of Hope. The Fatima seer, Sister Lucia, described the resplendent apparition which we need to heed now as a matter of great urgency: https://fatima.org/news-views/the-apparition-of-our-lady-and-the-child-jesus-at-pontevedra/ “On December 10, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to her [Lucia], and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was the Child Jesus. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said: “‘Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.’ “Then the Most Holy Virgin said: “‘Look, My daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console Me and announce in My name that I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Me.’” Blood and water flows from the Temple The Passover ritual that was occurring at the Temple while Jesus, the Lamb of God, was being crucified, facing the Temple, was being enacted in his very flesh. The slaughter of the sacrificial lambs, for instance. The rending of the huge curtain of the Holy of Holies. Even the priests sprinkling the floor with blood was imaged when Judas (was he a priest?) threw the blood money across the floor in front of the priests. (Dr. Ernest L. Martin, RIP, brillianty picked up this one). But, most significantly, the blood and water that gushed out from the side of the Temple when the priests opened a side door, at the same time that blood and water was flowing from the pierced side of Jesus on the Cross (as noted by Dr Ali Ataie, Christian Zionism: a Major Oxymoron).

Israel and US joined at the hip

“Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America’s posture throughout the Middle East— in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict— and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America’s national interest nor Israel’s long-term interest”. Taken from: https://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Citation: Walt, Stephen M, and John Mearsheimer. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Copy at http://www.tinyurl.com/282a4ubj Abstract: The Israel Lobby, by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory. Originally published in theLondon Review of Books in March 2006, it provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy. Prof. John Mearsheimer : Can the US Say NO to Israel? www.youtube.com › watch Now in a work of major importance, Mearsheimer and Walt deepen and expand their argument and confront recent developments in Lebanon and Iran. They describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America’s posture throughout the Middle East—in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America’s national interest nor Israel’s long-term interest. The lobby’s influence also affects America’s relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror. Writing in The New York Review of Books, Michael Massing declared, “Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force.” The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is certain to widen the debate and to be one of the most talked-about books of the year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAfIYtpcBxo