King Solomon's Temple
compiled by Dee Finney
Old Testament prophet Ezekiel once said of the ancient
Phoenician city of Tyre,
"You have corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor and power."
"Wine is strong, the King is stronger, women are
strongest, the TRUTH conquers all."
Have nothing to do with the evil deeds of
but rather expose them. Eph:5:11
|12-23-04 - 3:20 a.m. -
DREAM: I was working in a large corporation. It was a Sunday and few people were expected to be there.
I started to talk to another secretary and our conversation pointed to the fact that the President of the company was one of the top evil guys of the world. The President of the company was a very tall man, over 7 feet tall. He always wore black.
I wouldn't have told anyone this information about our boss, but a 7 foot tall man, dressed all in black with a black hat, who was a friend of the boss came in and heard us talking and he emphatically told me that if I didn't get all my stuff out of there within 24 hours and if I got another job anywhere in the same business, he would put out the word against me, and if he saw me anywhere, he wouldn't hesitate to take me out right where I stood.
He left then and I knew he meant what he said. He had the mean evil look to go along with his words and deeds.
So, immediately I tried to find someone to help me move. Everyone I asked said they had other obligations to attend to. As a last resort I called 'the teacher', who was an old friend who had moved to his own apartment a few years earlier. I dialed the number 423-4326.
(4+2+3+4+3+2+6 = 24=6 )
A young woman with a baby answered. I overheard her say that her husband was down in the basement doing the laundry.
So I didn't even tell the woman who I was. I assumed that 'the teacher' had moved again and told no one about it.
I went out into the hallway and spotted the 'expeditor' from where I worked at A-C back in the 70's and 80's. When he saw me coming, he did fast cartwheels backwards down the hall to get away from me. He knew I was going to ask for a favor.
I begged him to help me and he finally came with me.
Just then my old engineering boss Gene Fohr came along the hall and I asked him if he would be willing to hear my story and he said, "Yes!" (Both of these men are about 5' tall) The two men went into a side office to wait for me.
I felt so relieved that someone was willing to listen to what I had to say, that I actually felt happy, even though I still had an ordeal to go through in my life.
I went back to my office and for some reason I had a one room apartment next to the bosses office.
I decided I wouldn't even take the bed frame with me, only and blankets and quilts. I could buy a new bed when I got another job somewhere.
I was thinking maybe I could get a job selling makeup at a department store or something since I had some experience with that in the past.
Just then, the other secretary came in and I told her I felt so relieved, that I finally found someone to help me.
Her boyfriend came in then. He was a young man from India. He said a strange word that sounded with an 'O'. It sounded like 'Ommmmm'.
Then I knew, this was all about Queen Elizabeth of Tyre.
Who were the Phoenicians?
Text taken from: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature2/
In order to accept the thesis, you must be willing to believe in a conspiracy theory of the highest order. The assumption is that later Hebrew scribes did a cover-up job to eliminate all the links with Egypt. However, it is crucial for Ellis’ thesis that sufficient bits of information can be gleaned from much later sources such as the Egyptian historian Manetho, the Jewish writer Josephus, the New Testament, the Ethiopian tradition and the secrets of the Masons. These secondary authors provide the new sources for constructing the "alternative history". So in his reconstruction, characters and places in the Bible are never what they seem. Bathsheba (the mother of Solomon) is also the mysterious Queen of Sheba, who later marries her own son and has a child by him. She enjoys a colorful life as the daughter/wife of David and as the mother/wife of Solomon. Places in Jordan become sites in the Delta of Egypt, and Tyre is not the city in Lebanon but is another name for Tanis. The temple that Solomon builds is not in Jerusalem but is the now ruined complex at Tanis – in other words, Zion is equivalent to the biblical city of Zoan which we know from the Greeks as Tanis.
Egyptian history: Ellis does not accept the revisionist interpretation of chronology put forward by David Rohl, which is partly based on the Tanis tombs.
By and large Ellis sticks with the conventional dates.
However, in order to bring the biblical names and the Egyptian ones into line he has to re-order some of the kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty. Much more seriously, he has to eliminate altogether the forty-nine year reign of Psusennes I. This is because, while most scholars think the Tomb at Tanis was occupied by Psusennes I (c.1040- 990) Ellis contends it belongs to Psusennes II (c.960-45). In the same way, the brilliant silver hawk-shaped sarcophagus normally ascribed to Sheshonq II (890-889) is said to belong to Sheshonq I (945-924). The two burials thus become those of father and son – in biblical terms David and Solomon.
However we also need to remember that Psusennes was the last king of Manetho’s Twenty-first Dynasty and Sheshonq was the first ruler of the Twenty-second. All standard Egyptian text books see Sheshonq as a Libyan ruler, introducing a new family dynasty. Ellis has therefore to deny that Sheshonq was a Libyan at all. Rather he is a leader of the Shasu who are identified as descendants of the Hyksos. Also I am not sure that the idea of "Solomon-Sheshonq" marrying "Bathsheba/Queen of Sheba = God’s wife of Amun Mutemhat" is plausible. Egyptian kings may have married their sister or daughter, but is there any evidence of a Pharaoh marrying his own mother? It will be clear, therefore, that this history is radically "alternative" and is likely to prove unacceptable to both biblical and Egyptological purists. It is very detailed and certainly provoking.
|Pliny's report of the shining "emerald" pillar
in the temple of Melkart at Tyre and of gleaming emeralds set in the
eyes of a marble lion at the tomb of King Hermias, which were so bright
they frightened away fish.
Cyrus Gordon's Riddles In History (New York, 1974) in which he translates some Phoenician inscriptions that had been collected in Brazil in the nineteenth century, which indicated that Phoenicians had been blown ashore in Brazil during a storm at the time of Solomon/King Hiram of Tyre:
We are sons of Canaan from Sidon, the city of the king. Commerce has cast us on this distant shore, a land of mountains We sacrificed a youth for the exalted gods and goddesses in the nineteenth year of Hiram. our mighty king We embarked from Ezion-Geber into the Red Sea and voyaged with ten ships. We were at sea together for two years, around the land belonging to Ham [Africa], but were separated from the hand of Baal and we were no long with our companions So we have come here. twelve men and three women, on a...shore which I, the Admiral, control. But auspiciously may the exalted gods and goddesses favor us!
King Solomon making a pact with the same Hiram of Tyre to build ships
for him to go to Ophir in search of gold:
Volumes of speculation have been written about the exact location of Ophir. but its location has never been determined.
The King's name is variously spelt as Hiram, Hirom and Huram, and was probably Ahi-ram. Josephus says that letters between Solomon and this king were preserved in the Tyrian archives. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, ch. viii) He also quotes the historians Dius and Menander of Ephesus, who say that Hiram was the son of King Abi-baal.
One might merely think that the Phoenicians who landed in Brazil were killed by natives and that was the end of the affair, but, as a matter of fact the New World is explicitly mentioned by ancient geographers who say that the Phoenicians not only knew about it but wanted to conceal its existence from others so it could serve as a "retreat" for them:
There lies out in the deep off Libya an island of considerable size and situated as it is in the ocean it is distant from Libya a voyage of a number of days to the west....
In ancient times this island remained undiscovered because of its distance from the entire inhabited world, but it was discovered at a later period for the following reason. The Phoenicians. from ancient times traded throughout Libya and not a few as well in the western parts of Europe. And since their ventures turned out according to their expectations they amassed great wealth and essayed to voyage beyond the Pillars of Heracles into the sea which men call the ocean...
The Phoenicians, while exploring the coast outside the Pillars...were driven by strong winds a great distance out into the ocean. And after being storm-tossed for many days they were carried ashore on the island we mentioned above...
Consequently the Tyrians, at the time when they were masters of the sea, proposed to dispatch a colony to it; but the Carthaginians prevented their doing so, partly out of concern lest many inhabitants of Carthage should remove there because of the excellence of the island, and partly in order to have ready in it a place in which to seek refuge against an incalculable turn of fortune, in case some total disaster should overtake Carthage For it was their thought that, since they were masters of the sea, they would thus be able to move, households and all, to an island which was unknown to their conquerors.
(Diodorus Siculus, COMPLETE WORKS, V. 19-20.Loeb Edition Heinemann. 1933-67.)
This account by Diodorus Siculus seems to correlate very nicely with both the inscriptions found in Brazil referring back to Hiram of Tyre (which makes them Tyrians), and the biblical account of the contract between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre for the building and manning of ships to go to Ophir. Or if they weren't exactly the same voyage(s), they were certainly part of a Phoenician exploratory push out into the Atlantic.
In Phoenician times, Tyre was famous for its export of richly dyed purple textiles, using a dye extracted from the murex sea snail. Because of its rarity, the color was typically worn by royalty. The Tyrean purple dye was so highly valued that the Greeks named the people living in the city state “Phoenicians,” after the Greek word for “purple.”
Tyre’s list of former rulers and conquerors reads likes a Who’s-Who from Antiquity. From King Hiram (980 BC), who supplied Lebanese cedars to King Solomon for the building of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem; to the Phoenician Princess Elissa (also known as Dido), who left Tyre to found the famous city of Carthage (814 BC); to the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, who laid siege to the city for 13 years (500 BC); to Alexander the Great, who conquered Tyre by building a causeway to connect the island city to the mainland (332 BC) –
Details of her life are sketchy and confusing, however, following is what one can deduce from various sources. According to Justin, Princess Elissar was the daughter of King Matten or Muttoial of Tyre (Belus II of classical literature). After his death, the throne was jointly bequeathed to her and her brother, Pygmalian. She was married to her uncle Acherbas (Sychaeus of classical literature), High Priest of Melqart and a man of authority and riches like that of a king. Tyrannical Pygmalion, a lover of gold and intrigue, was eager to be acquire the authority and fortune of Acherbas. He assassinated him in the Temple and kept his evil deed a secret for a long time from his sister. He cheated her with fictions about his death. Meanwhile, the people of Tyre were pressing for a single sovereign that caused dissensions within the royal family.
Legend has it that the ghost of Acherbas appeared to Elissar in a dream and told her what had happened to him. Further, he told her where she could find his treasure. Further, he advised her to leave Tyre for fear of her life. Elissar and her supporters seized the treasure of gold. However, because she was threatened and frightened, Elissar decided to trick and flee her brother.
Not to awaken her brother's suspicions, she made it known that she wanted to travel and send him offerings. Acherbas approved thinking that Elissar would send him riches. He provided her with ships. During the night, Elissar had her treasures of gold hidden in the hold of the ships and had bags filled with sands laid out onboard, also. Once at sea she had the sand bags thrown overboard, calling that an offering in memory of her murdered husband. The servants feared that loss of the treasure would enrage the king against and they would suffer his reprisal. Consequently, they decided to pay allegiance to Elissar and accompany her on a voyage. Elissar's supports, as well as additional senators and priests of Melqart joined the group. Consequently, they left the country in secret, leaving behind their homeland forever.
They traveled first to the island of Cyprus to get supplies for a longer journey. There, twenty virgins who were devoted to serve in the Temple of Ashtarte (Venus) as vestal virgins, renounced their vows, and married in the Tyrinian entourage that accompanied the princess. Thereafter, Elissar and her company, "the vagrants" (a.k.a. Dido the 'wanderer' faced the open sea in search for a new place to settle.
Elissar and her Tyrinian entourage, including her priests and temple maidens of Ashtarte, crossed the length of the Mediterranean in several ships and settled the shores of what's today modern Tunisia. Her expedition came and negotiated with the local inhabitants on purchasing a piece of land. Sailing into the Gulf of Tunis she spied a headland that would be the perfect spot for a city and chose the very site called Cambe or Caccabe which was an ancient Sidonian Phoenician trading post. However, some records indicate that the goddess Tanit (Juno in Latin) indicated the spot were to found the city. The natives there weren't too happy about the newcomers, but Elissar was able to make a deal with their king Japon: she promised him a fair amount of money and rent for many years for as much land as she could mark out with a bull's skin.
The king thought he was getting the better end of the deal, but he soon noticed that the woman he was dealing with was smarter than he had expected. This purchase contained some intrigue while the size of the land was thought not to exceed a "Bull's Hide," it actually was a lot larger then ever thought. The trick she and her expedition employed was that they cutup a bull's hide into very thin which they sewed together into one long string. Then they took the seashore as one edge for the piece of land and laid the skin into a half-circle. Consequently, Elissar and her company got a much bigger piece of land than the king had thought possible. The Carthaginians continued to pay rent for the land until the 6th century BC. That hilltop today is called the "Byrsa." Byrsa means "ox hide." However, there is some confusion over the word; some believe that it refers to the Phoenician word borsa which means citadel or fortress.
King Japon was very impressed by Elissar's great mathematical talents and asked her to marry him. She refused, so he had a huge university built, hoping to find another young lady with similar talents instead. On that "carved" site, Elissar and her colonial entourage founded a new city ca. 814 BC.3 They called it 'Qart-Haddasht' (Carthage) which comes from two Phoenician words that mean 'New Land." In memory of their Tyrinian origin, the people of Carthage paid an annual tribute to the temple of Melqart of Tyre in Phoenicia.
The city of Carthage slowly gained its independence from Tyre though it was initially controlled by its own magistrates carrying the title of suffetes It kept close links with Tyre, the metropolis, until 332 BC.
The colonization of Carthage, and thereafter, the territories around the western Mediterranean were a very successful endeavor that gave rise to the powerful Phoenician Punic dominions. A western Mediterranean Phoenicians become known as Carthaginians. Later, Punic, a name used by the Romans to refer to western Mediterranean Phoenicians, was applied to all Carthaginians and the 300 city states and lands they came to occupy.
The Carthaginian were very captivated with their queen and many believe that she was thought to be a goddess who came to be known Tanit.
Like the historical Elissar, Vergil's Elissar fled from her brother and founded Carthage after buying some land in Africa. As the gods would have it, Aeneas, a great hero who had fled from the burning Troy, stranded near Carthage not much later. Elissar fell madly in love with the hero (here Amor played his part) and completely forgot to take care of her people. The gods, however, still had plans for Aeneas to found Rome, so he had to leave. Elissar then killed herself because she had not only failed to rule over her people, but she hadn't even been able to keep a man there who could have taken over that job.
In our version, Elissar is probably saved from her suicidal death for the first time. Also, the king could show himself from his good side. Instead of being jealous of Elissar's success, he turns history around and founds the first university where women have free access to study. And this was 2700 years before women first were admitted to universities with equal rights.
Founded at the
start of the third millennium B.C., Tyre originally consisted of a
mainland settlement and a modest island city that lay a short
distance off shore. But it was not until the first millennium B.C.
that the city experienced its golden age.
In the absence of any complete Phoenician history, the first ruler of Tyre
of whom we have definite knowledge is that Hiram, or Huram, of whom the Bible
tells as a contemporary of David and Solomon. From other sources we learn
that Hiram came to the throne about 980 B.C. as a youth of nineteen, and
ruled for nearly forty years. We should not think of him merely as the ally
of the Hebrew kings, sending them cedars from Lebanon for the construction of
their temple and palaces. It seems clear that the Hebrews looked up to Hiram
and his Phoenicians with admiration as a more cultured race. Hiram dispatched
to Jerusalem a numerous body of Phoenician artists and overseers, who
directed almost every step of Solomon's buildings. Hence, both the art and
architecture of the Hebrews were chiefly Tyrian.
According to the author of the Second Book of Chronicles (Chap. ii.) Solomon sent messengers to Hiram, King of Tyre, to acquaint that friendly sovereign with the fact that he contemplated erecting a Temple, and inviting him to furnish men and materials for the prosecution of the work. Solomon's first demand was for a specially gifted craftsman.
"Send me now," he says, "a man cunning to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in iron, and in purple, and crimson, and blue, and that can skill to grave with the cunning men that are with me in Judah, and in Jerusalem:" The King of Tyre received the embassy with cordiality, and returned a. favourable answer to Solomon.
"I have sent a cunning man," he says, "endued with understanding. . . The son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was ''a man of Tyre."
The account given. in the First Book of the Kings (Chap. VII.) differs somewhat so far as the parentage of the man is concerned. There it is stated that he was "a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali." The author or editor of Kings agrees with the Chronicler that Hiram's father was a Tyrian, adding that he was "a worker in brass." Josephus describes him as of Naphtali on his mother's side, his father being Ur of the stock of Israel. It is not easy to reconcile these differences. One Biblical student - Giesebrecht - suggests that the dislike felt by the editor of Kings to the idea of the Temple being built by a half-Phoenician caused him to insert the words "a widow of the tribe of Naphtali," the alteration of the phrase "of the daughters of Dan" into "of the tribe of Naphtali," being the more permissible, since Dan lay in the territory of Naphtali.
The clear points that emerge are that Hiram was of mixed race, the son of a brassworker, and a man so high in his profession as to have secured the patronage of his King, and to have been deemed worthy to uphold the reputation of his country. His exalted position is inferred from the description given by the author of the Chronicles who alludes to him as "Hiram Abi," and the word "Abi," meaning "my father," is usually taken in the sense of "master," a title of respect and distinction.
|In the book, Freemasonry and Its Ancient Mystic Rites, by
C.W. Leadbeater, on pages 66 - 77 we are told:
The Builders of King Solomon's Temple
Something both of the inner powers and of the Egyptian rituals had been faithfully handed down from generation to generation from the days of Moses until King Solomon came to the throne of his father David. There is some truth in the tradition preserved in the Bible, although there are exaggerations and mistakes in the accounts which have come down to us, and much of the inner meaning of the symbols have been forgotten. King Solomon seems to have been a man of considerable force of character and some occult knowledge, and the great ambition of his life was to weld his people into a strong and respected kingdom , able to take an influential place among the nations around. To that end he built a temple in Jerusalem to be the centre of the religious worship of his people and a symbol of their national unity; it was perhaps not quite so magnificent as tradition relates, but the King was nevertheless extremely proud of it and considered it to be one of the great achievements of the age.
In this work he was assisted by his ally, Hiram King of Tyre, who supplied a quantity of material for the building, and lent many clever craftsman to aid in the work; for the Phoenicians were more skilled in building than the Jews, who were chiefly a pastoral people. Also about fifty years before some of the wandering bands of Masons who called themselves the Dionysian Artificers had settled in Phoenicia so King Hiram was able to supply many expert workmen.
Hiram Abiff was also a real personage, though he did not meet his death in the manner recorded in Masonic tradition. He was a decorator rather than the actual Architect of the Temple, as the biblical records clearly tell us. "He was filled with wisdom and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass." He was "skilful to work in gold, and in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine linen, and in crimson; also to grave any manner of graving, and to find out every device which shall be put to him" (Chronicles ii, 14 )
Josephus confirms the tradition that he was an artist and a craftsman rather than an architect: "This man was skillful in all sorts of work, but his chief skill lay in working in gold and silver and brass, and he did all the curious work about the temple as the King wished." (Josephus, Ant. viii)
He was the son of a widow in Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass before him. Since so much responsibility rested in his hands, and he was so skillful an artist, he appears to have been in the close confidence of King Solomon, and a member of his council. He was evidently treated as an equal by the two Kings, and that is one of the reasons which influenced Bro. Ward to translate Hiram Abiff as "Hiram his father." and to represent the King of Tyre as sending his abdicated father to superintend the decoration of the temple.
But King Solomon's plans for the consolidation of his people were not yet complete; by building of his temple he had formed at outer center of national worship, and he now desired that the Mysteries, the heart of the people's religion and the centre of their spirit consciousness should also be purely Jewish in form. The ceremonial handed down from the days of Moses was still Egyptian, and the initiates of the mysteries were yet symbolically engaged in building the great pyramid 'The House of Light', and in celebrating the death and resurrection of Osiris. Even though it had no corresponding halls of initiation, King Solomon desired that for the future his temple should take the place of the 'House of Light', and become the spiritual centre of the Jewish Mysteries. King Hiram warmly supported this idea: he himself had inherited initiatory rites which had been derived from the Mysteries of Chaldaea, a very ancient line of tradition running parallel with the Mysteries of Egypt from Atlantean days, and having its own chief halls of initiation in Babylon. He too, felt that a centre nearer home and in friendly hands was eminently desirable, and he therefore co-operated in the plan of Judaizing the ancient rites and focusing them upon the temple in Jerusalem.
At first, it appears the two Kings went an embassy to Egypt to consult the Pharaoh in the matter, telling him of the temple which they had built, and asking for some recognition of the Jewish branch of the Mysteries. The Pharaoh did not accept their proposals with any degree of enthusiasm, but rather implied that no foreigner could possibly understand the Mysteries of Egypt. The Egyptians of the period seem to have regarded their Jewish brethren with something of the same feeling that the Grand Lodge of England might have towards the Grand Orient of Hayti if should propose alterations in the ritual, and their interest in the new venture was decidedly cold.
The Mingling of Traditions
On the return of their embassy from Egypt King Solomon and King Hiram called together the council at Jerusalem, and it was decided that they should proceed immediately with the work of recasting the rituals into Jewish form. It is an interesting fact that three distinct lines of tradition were represented in the persons of the three chief members of the council, and of each of these we can find traces in our modern workings.
King Solomon himself had inherited the Egyptian line of succession derived from Moses; King Hiram of Tyre preserved the Chaldean descent; while Hiram Abiff brought with him another line of tradition, not derived from either of these sources.
This last line was strange and terrible - a line probably perpetuated through savage and primitive tribes, who had bloodthirsty customs of mutilation and human sacrifice."
There is much evidence to show that our traditional history is based upon the myth of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, and is in reality an account of the ritual murder of one of the Priest-Kings of that religion. In earlier times a representative was really killed and offered up as a sacrifice to ensure fertility. The tribes in the area of Judea were all addicted to the worship of the deity.
"Solomon himself was by no means definitely monotheistic, and his people betrayed a distinct tendency to run after strange gods. There seems much evidence to prove that the love-song attributed to him in the Bible is really a ritual hymn to Astarte, for whom he built a temple quite near to that of Jehovah. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether Balkis, Queen of Sheba, was a real person, or only a personification of Astarte.
Brother Ward explains that the festivals of the two patron saints of Freemasonry, St. John the Baptist in summer and St. John the Evangelist in winter, are only a perpetuation of the feats of the old fertility cult at the summer and winter solstices; that similar cultural rites are found in other lands, Teutonic, Celtic and Greek, that they also survived among the Essenes and that the Knights Templars brought back from Syria a story very similar to that of the 3rd degree. The tale of Jonah, he remarks has always been understood as a myth of death and resurrection, and he also was sacrificed to appease a deity, and obtain salvation for others, just as was the Priest King of old. He quotes many instances of foundation and consecration sacrifices; and holding as he does that Hiram Abiff was the father of that other Hiram who was King of Tyre, he writes:
" The Phoenician and Jewish
followers of the old Tammuz cult no doubt felt
In the book 'The Templar Revelation, Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ, by Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince, on page 132 says:
French Freemasons have a curious legend about 'Maitre Jacques', a mythical figure who was patron of the French medieval stonemason's guilds. He was according to the story, one of the master masons who worked on Solomon's Temple. After the death of Hiram Abiff he left Palestine and, together with thirteen journeyman, sailed to Marselles. The followers of his great enemy, the master mason Father Soubise, determined ot kill him, so he hid in the cave at Sainte-Baume - the same one that was later occupied by Mary Magdalene. All to no avail: he was betrayed and killed. The Masons still observe a pilgrimage to the site every July 22nd.
On page 128, they tell us: "Rosslyn Chapel itself contains some apparent anomalies in its decoration. Every square inch of the chapels interior is covered in carved symbols and the building as a whole is designed to accord with the high ideals of sacred geometry. Much of this is undeniably Masonic. It boasts the "Apprentice Pillar', an explicit parallel with the Masonic myth of Hiram Abiff., and the apprentice depicted on it is known as 'the Son of the Widow., a highly significant Masonic term. The lintel next to this pillar bears the inscription:
Wine is strong, the King is stronger, women are strongest, the TRUTH conquers all."
The master mason having received from his patron the model of a pillar of exquisite workmanship and design, hesitated to carry it out until he had been to Rome or some such foreign part. and seen the original. He went abroad, and in his absence, an apprentice, having dreamed the finished pillar, at once set to work and carried out the design as it now stands, a perfect marvel of workmanship. The master mason on his return was so stung with envy that he asked who had dared to do it in his absence. On being told it was his own apprentice, he was so inflamed with rage and passion, that he struck him with his mallet, killed him on the spot, and paid the penalty for his rash and cruel act."
The design and workmanship displayed by this strange carving, surpass in skill the vast majority of the other inspired sculptures of even this mystical church. It is alleged that the apprentice himself originally came from the Orkneys and the pillar for which he gave his life represents the Yggdrasil tree of Norse mythology, the world Ash which binds together heaven, earth and hell. The crown of this tree comprises the twelve constellations of the Zodiac, the spiralling branches symbolise the planets and the roots of the trunk dig deeply into the elements of the earth. At the bottom of the pillar the dragons of Neifelheim can be seen gnawing at the roots of the tree to rob it of its fruitfulness. 'The pillar itself represents a kind of transformation of an ancient pagan conception into the Christian Tree of Life. Thus to the curious mixture of Celtic, Pagan, Greek and Medieval Christian spiritual references present in this unique chapel, we now have to add Norse influences as well.
|The House of Stewart
"Scotland's Royal House of Stewart arose from a marital union of the hereditary lines of Jesus and his brother James -- springing from the Merovingians' own source on the one hand, and from the Celtic Kings of Britain on the other. The Stewarts emerged, therefore, as a truly unique Grail dynasty and have long been known as the 'House of Unicorns'. . .Along with the David Lion of Judah and the Franco-Judaic fleur-de-lys, the Desposynic Unicorn was incorporated in the Royal Arms of Scotland." [Gardiner, Bloodline, p. 315]
The earliest known member of the House of Stewart was Flaald I (Flaald the Seneschal), an 11th century Breton noble who was a follower of the Lord of Dol and Combourg. Flaald and his immediate descendants held the hereditary and honorary post of Dapifer (food bearer) in the Lord of Dol's household. His grandson Flaald II was a supporter of Henry I of England and made the crucial move from Brittany to Britain, which was where the future fortunes of the Stewarts lay.
Walter the Steward (died 1177), the grandson of Flaald II, was born in Shropshire. Along with his brother William, ancestor of the Fitzalan family (the Earls of Arundel), he supported Empress Maud during the Anarchy. Maud was aided by her uncle, David I of Scotland, and Walter followed David north in 1141, after Maud had been usurped by Stephen. Walter was granted land in Renfrewshire and the position of Lord High Steward. Malcolm IV made the position hereditary and it was inherited by Walter's son, who took the surname Stewart.
The sixth High Steward of Scotland, Walter Stewart (1293-1326), married Majory, daughter of Robert the Bruce. Their son Robert was heir to the House of Bruce; he eventually inherited the Scottish throne when his uncle David II of Scotland died childless in 1371.
In 1503, James IV of Scotland attempted to secure peace with England by marrying Henry VII's daughter, Margaret Tudor. The birth of their son, later James V, brought the House of Stewart into the line of descent of the House of Tudor, and the English throne. Margaret Tudor later married Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus, and their daughter, Margaret Douglas, was the mother of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. In 1565, Darnley married his half-cousin Mary, the daughter of James V. Darnley's father was Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox, a direct descendant of Alexander Stewart, the fourth High Steward, and Mary's heir presumptive, who had changed the spelling of his surname whilst at the English court. Therefore Darnley was also related to Mary on his father's side, and at the time of their marriage was himself second in line to the Scottish throne. Because of this connection, Mary's heirs remained part of the House of Stewart.
Dapifers of Dol
High Stewards of Scotland
Robert II (1371-1390)
called "the Steward", a title that gave the name to the House of Stewart (or Stuart).
In 1318 the Scottish parliament decreed that if King Robert died without sons the crown should pass to his grandson; but the birth of a son afterwards, King David II, to Bruce in 1324 postponed the accession of Robert for nearly forty-two years. Soon after the infant David became king in 1329, the Steward began to take a prominent part in the affairs of Scotland. He was one of the leaders of the Scottish army at the battle of Halidon Hill in July 1333; and after gaining some successes over the adherents of Edward Balliol in the west of Scotland, he and John Randolph, 3rd Earl of Moray (d. 1346), were chosen as regents of the kingdom, while David sought safety in France.
The colleagues soon quarrelled; then Randolph fell into the hands of the English and Robert became sole regent, meeting with such success in his efforts to restore the royal authority that the king was able to return to Scotland in 1341. Having handed over the duties of government to David, the Steward escaped from the battle of Neville's Cross in 1346, and was again chosen regent while the king was a captive in England. Soon after this event some friction arose between Robert and his royal uncle. Accused, probably without truth, of desertion at Neville's Cross, the Steward as heir-presumptive was greatly chagrined by the king's proposal to make Edward III of England, or one of his sons, the heir to the Scottish throne, and by David's marriage with Margaret Logie.
In 1363 he rose in rebellion, and after having made his submission was seized and imprisoned together with four of his sons, being only released a short time before David's death in February 1371. By the terms of the decree of 1318 Robert now succeeded to the throne, and was crowned at Scone in March 1371. He was not a particularly active king. Some steps were taken by the nobles to control the royal authority. In 1378 a war broke out with England; but the king took no part in the fighting, which included the burning of Edinburgh and the Scottish victory at the Battle of Otterbourne in 1388.
As age and infirmity were telling upon him, the estates in 1389 appointed his second surviving son Robert, Earl of Fife, afterwards Duke of Albany, guardian of the kingdom. The king died at Dundonald in 1390, and was buried at Scone.
His first wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Adam Mure of Rowallan, a lady who had formerly been his mistress. Robert had married her in 1336, but as the marriage had been criticised as uncanonical, he remarried her in 1349. By her he had at least four sons, including Alexander of Buchan, Robert of Albany, his successor Robert III, and six daughters. By his second wife, Euphemia, daughter of Hugh, 6th Earl of Ross, and widow of the 3rd Earl of Moray, formerly his colleague as regent, he had two sons and several daughters.
The confusion about the circumstances of his first marriage would later lead to conflict amongst the descendants of his first marriage (which included James I of Scotland) and the unquestionably legitimate descendants of his second marriage.
Robert had also eight illegitimate children, mostly by unknown mothers.
Robert III (1390-1406) m. Annabella
Robert III told his wife, Annabella, that his epitaph should be: "Here lies the worst of kings and the most wretched of men in the whole realm." He said he should be buried on a rubbish heap.
(It is possibe an illegimate child of his named Lady Jean married first to Sir John Keith, second to Sr. John Lyon and third to Sir James Sandilands was the ancestor of H.M. Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.
James I (1406-1437) m. Joan,
daughter of John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset (grandson of Edward III)
This tapestry was woven after William and Mary were crowned .When William and Mary were crowned they became king and queen of England, Scotland, Ireland and France. The claim to France dated from the Middle Ages, it was by now a fiction but continued until 1801. Scotland and England were brought under one crown in 1603 and Ireland, which had been fought over since 1171, was finally subdued by William in 1690 at the Battle of the Boyne. king and queen on 11 April 1689 - 21 April 1689. Different dates are sometimes quoted for historical events since the reform of the calender presented by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 was not adopted everywhere simultaneously. The switch to the Gregorian calender involved an adjustment of ten days and the removal of the start of the year to 1 January, instead of Christmas, Easter or, as in Britain, Annunciation Day. While the New Style calendar soon replaced the Old Style or Julian calender in most of the Dutch provinces, the British waited until in 1752: 31 December 1751 was followed by 1 January 1752 (instead of 1 January 1751, as it would have been) and 2 September 1752 by 14 September 1752 (the difference had by then increased to eleven days). - and before Mary died in 1695.
HOUSE OF UNICORN
Job 39:9 "Will the unicorn be
willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
The assertion is advanced that the word "unicorn" as found in Job 39:9-12 is a "mistranslation." It is further argued that "unicorn" should have been translated "wild-ox" because "The Jews have never taught on unicorns." The article goes on to state that the "unicorn" was "…a mythical creature… a creature unknown to be indigenous to the earth…" It is claimed that "…this misrepresentation …is accountable to King James. The unjustified identification…"
The writer further postulates that the beast in question was so obviously a "wild-ox" that the fact that "…Jesus [didn’t] enlighten the Hebrew’s understanding of this passage at His first coming …" is further proof of his thesis, especially "…since the idea of a unicorn is so far removed from what the Jews understood the creature to be?" The author concludes by writing that "We believe the answer for King James’ introduction of the mythological unicorn into the Scriptures is once again found in the king’s commitment to British Israelism."
In parting our misinformed littérateur states quite emphatically "King James Charles Stuart VI & I (Scotland’s Royal House of Stuart were long known as the ‘House of Unicorns’ and to this very day the ‘Unicorn’ along with the ‘Davidc Lion of Judah’ are incorporated in the Royal Arms Great Seal of Scotland and the British Coat of Arms…"
Two things, first, if indeed the "unicorn" is so far removed from Jewish understanding, then why would King James wish to employ a "mythological" creature to symbolize something that it had no true identification with? This simply makes no sense.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the author if this article seems to be confused as well as grossly mistaken. Let us briefly consult some standard reference works on Heraldry to illuminate the topic properly.
"The Unicorn, however, it is not easy to resolve into an original basis, because until the seventeenth century every one fondly believed in the existence of the animal."
"There was a time - not so long ago- when the existence of the unicorn was as implicitly believed in as the camel or any other animal not seen in these latitudes; and the translators of the Bible set their seal upon the legend by translating the Hebrew word reem (which probably meant a rhinoceros) as ‘unicorn.’ Thus the worthy Thomas Fuller came to consider the existence of the unicorn clearly proved by the mention of Scripture. It is interesting to note Fuller cites Pliny’s description in addition to his own.
Various theories have been advanced as to what precisely the unicorn actually was. Candidates range from "wild antelopes (or goats) of Syria and Palestine" to "rhinoceros" However, the legend of the unicorn traces itself far back into history as the story "…is at least as old as Pliny." There are ancient depictions of the beast recorded in drawings and illuminations.
And during the first year of Elizabeth I, as well as in that of "…Shakespeare’s time at Windsor Castle the ‘horn of a unicorn of above eight spans and a half in length, valued at above £10,000/’ This may be been the one now at Buckingham Palace." There are contemporary accounts describing this horn in the archives.
"’Nor is belief in the unicorn confined to Europe. By Chinese writers it is characterised as a ‘spiritual beast’ The existence of the unicorn is firmly credited by the most intelligent natives and by not a few Europeans. A very trustworthy observer, the Abbé Huc, speaks very positively on the subject: ‘The unicorn really exists in Tibet…We had for a long time a small Mongol treatise on Natural History, for the use of children, in which a unicorn formed one of the pictorial illustrations.’"
As we have seen King James did not personally introduce this beast into Holy Scripture, and as we shall see shortly nor was the unicorn confined to the House of Stuart, as it is properly known and which is its precise nomenclature, contrary to the assertion of it being known as the "House of Unicorn."
To this end we must note clearly that "The Unicorn, famous as the Scottish royal supporter, …" was a symbol of Scotland, the Kings of Scotland, and never as any symbol of "British Israelism" as supposed. Furthermore, if one consults the famous standard reference work Burke’s Peerage one will find the remarks above to be true.
On page lxxx under "The Royal Lineage" for the "Kings Of Scotland" one can clearly see as reproduced below that unicorns stand as bilateral supporters of the Royal Arms.
Hunt of the Unicorn
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
David's lineage could be here in Britain. The king's DAUGHTERS were spared. (Jer. 41:10-17, & Jer.43:6) This Hebrew Princess, Tea Tephi, married a dark Irish king, named Eochaide the Heremon, with Jeremiah's blessings. In Irish folklores, it says that an old patriarch came with this Israelite princess. They came with a Stone, Harp, & an Ark(chest). Click on this site. coronation stone Jeremiah & the Princess were Shemitic(Brown) not white, so ones need to learn that. It is said that the Birthright did go to Ephraim not Judah. Judah had two sons Zarah/Pharez by Tamar. Pharez is where the Judaic kings excelled & rose from. Pharez's lineage, was always exalted, but it shall fall, Zarah would be recognised now.
One of the reasons, why the British Monarchy believe that they've received Israel's Ephramite blessing, is because they claim to have the Bethel Stone that Jacob slept on. Jacob dreamt of a Heavenly ladder with Angels ascending & descending on it. "And, behold, Jah stood above it, and said, I am Yahweh, the Elohim' of Abraham thy Father, and the Elohim' of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it." - Gen. 28:13-15, 18.
Ones believe that the Bethel Stone was brought to England. This stone of scone, has now been returned to Scotland, since 1996. Every king & queen, from Ireland to England, is believed to have been crowned with this stone, under the throne. Capt. E. Raymond also wrote a book called, Jacob's Pillar. But still, I rather teach about the Ethiopian lineage. For the Ethiopian Royal Family, have shown themselves to be King David's true family! Britain has lost the spiritual value, as I can see.
Britain does use the Lion symbol as Ethiopia, representing our Lord and Saviour Iyesus Kristos(The Lion of the Tribe of Judah). When the Queen's mother died, a lion emblem was placed on her casket. The British even attended His Majesty's Coronation, November 2nd, 1930. At first the Ethiopians didn't want them to attend, since they did steal from Magdala, but it was allowed, because they claimed to be from the Royal House of David like Ethiopia. The Sceptre of Judah, which was stolen from Ethiopia by Julius Ceasar, then the British, was returned to H.I.M. Haile Selassie I, by the Duke of Gloucester.
Haile Selassie I - 1935
His Highness, the Duke of Gloucester, came to His Majesty and said," Your Imperial Majesty, my father King George V, wanted to give you this. Here is the Sceptre which we stole from Ethiopia. We shall serve your Imperial Majesty! " The Sceptre of the House of Judah was given to Ethiopia! It is said that His Majesty sent a gift for King George V, but he died after seeing it. What was this gift that Haile Selassie I gave to King George V, that caused him to die?
Britain (House of Ephraim), did receive Jah's Blessings, but only Ethiopia (House of Judah) stretched forth her hands to Him, not Britain for sure. They have truly lost this pride & dignity! In the days of Charlotte Sophia, & these Ethiopic British kings/queens, the Davidic lineage was there, but no more. The country of Ethiopia, has been truly blessed by JAH! They not only contain the Ark of the Covenant, & Judah's Sceptre, but Israel's throne too. So the Monarchy must be restored, by Crown Prince Zere Yacob, our future King & Emperor of Ethiopia!
Ethiopia is who I rather teach the people about not Britain. Ethiopia is the Origin of Civilization not Britain. Britain is one of Ethiopia's daughters, & the mother (Ethiopia) must be taught first before the daughter (Britain). For the picture of Queen Charlotte Sophia, reveals that Shemites/ Hamites were in Britain after all, but these white racist scholars tried to hide this fact. Israel, also extended the Israelite monarchy to the British Isles, but were Shemites, not Japhethites. Ethiopia is JUDAH, & Britain is EPHRAIM, they both received the Sceptre & Birthright blessings, but Britain lost it. Yet in New Jerusalem, Judah & Ephraim will unify again! (Ezekiel 37:16,17)
Stone of Scone (Destiny)
Traditionally it is said to have been Jacob's pillow when he saw the angels of Bethel. Another legend suggests it was brought to Scotland by Scotia, daughter of an Egyptian pharaoh. The most likely explanation is that it was a royal stone brought from Antrim to Argyll and then to Scone by Kenneth MacAlpin, the 36th King of Dalriada.
Carried away from Scotland by English King Edward I in 1296, the 400-pound Stone of Scone (pronounced SKOON) reputedly was the coronation seat of ancient kings of Scotland and Ireland -- and, some say, the pillow of the patriarch Jacob. Some say that the stone placed beneath the Coronation Chair was a fake, the true Stone of Scone having been hastily hidden by the monks in an underground chamber. The truth may never be known.
Scottish Nationalists removed the Stone from Westminster in 1950 and returned it to Scotland. It was recovered in the grounds of Arbroath Abbey four months later.
The Stone of Scone was last used at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II - and so it still performs its ancient duty, and to far great effect, making not only the monarch of the Scots but of Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
British Government Returned the Stone to Scotland
On November 15, 1996, the Stone of Destiny, on which Scottish kings had been crowned since time immemorial, was brought back to Scotland 700 years after the army of King Edward I of England carted it off to Westminster Abbey in London. Now safely ensconced in Edinburgh Castle, the 152 kg rock popularly known outside Scotland as the "Stone of Scone" has joined the other Scottish royal regalia -- crown, sceptre, sword and jewels -- in a closely-guarded museum.
The Stone was last used in a coronation in Scotland in 1292, when John Balliol was proclaimed King. Four years later, in 1296, the English monarch, Edward I (infamous as the "hammer of the Scots," and nemesis of Scottish national hero William Wallace) invaded Scotland. Among the booty that Edward's army removed was the legendary Stone, which the English king apparently regarded as an important symbol of Scottish sovereignty. The present Coronation Throne was made to house the stone in 1301.
But is the stone that finally rests securely in Edinburgh Castle the real Stone of Destiny? After so many centuries, it is impossible to know. According to one legend, the Stone never left Ireland at all. One tale suggests that the original Stone of Destiny was white marble, carved with decorative figures -- in no way resembling the plain slab of yellow sandstone with a single Latin cross carved on it that sat beneath the throne in Westminster Abbey for these past seven centuries. To make matters more confusing, there may have been several copies made down through the ages! It is entirely within the realm of possibility that some canny Scots fobbed off a fake on Edward I, seven hundred years ago, hiding the original coronation stone where it would never be found. One story particularly satisfying to Scottish nationalists with long memories claims that Edward actually took the rough rock used to hold down the cover of the cess-pit at Scone Castle, and that subsequent English monarchs have ceremoniously seated themselves on this medieval plumbing accessory for their coronations ever since 1308! At least one acknowledged copy of the "Westminster" Stone exists, on public display at beautiful Scone Palace in Perthshire, where it serves as a favorite roost for the elegant peacocks and camera-toting tourists who stroll the grounds.
Edward I was aware of the sacred Stone of Scotland and its strange history connecting it with Empire. He knew the Scots venerated the Stone and were willing to die for it. He knew the Scottish nation and believed there was an aura of fatality, inseparable from their ancient Stone, which convinced them that their monarchy could not be shaken while the relic was in the land; but it would suffer great changes were the Stone removed. So he took the Stone after defeating them in battle. [This was one of the causes of the rebellion led by William Wallace several years later].
'On the surface he wanted to persuade the Scots that the time for the dissolution of their kingdom had come, and so dampen their hopes of ever recovering their national liberty. But inwardly Edward dreamed of an Empire, and he its sovereign lord. Was there truth in the prophecy about the Stone; he wanted it! To ensure that his secret desire was not flawed, he had all the Scottish monuments destroyed, and books and records burned.
'This detestable act was abhorred by all who knew of it ('History of England,' by M. Rapine de Thoyras, page 427). Refering to this, de Thoyras wrote 'Those records were such a loss to the nation, to their posterity and to the world, as time could never replace.' And he revealed that in a similar manner and from similar motives many valuable Irish records were also consumed.
Most of European Royalty is directly traceable to Biblical times. Most claim to be directly descended from King David, son of Jesse and the Royal house of Judah.
The ties between Jesus and England are many. The
traditions surrounding Glastonbury make it certain that Jesus spent much
time there. God has been "grooming" England all through
history. From the arrival of Brutus in 1103 BC, Jeremiah in Ireland in
583 BC, the Druid (Hebrew) Priests, the Megalith Builders of prehistory,
and the endless waves of Celts and Scythians that migrated to that area.
We can conclude that England has a part in God's plan.
Only after the Second Temple was destroyed
by Rome in 70 AD, and a subsequent Jewish revolt was crushed in 135 AD,
was the Jewish presence in the city temporarily suspended, following the
killing or enslavement of the Jewish population by the Romans.
By the 4th century, some Jews had managed to make their way back to the city. In the 5th century, under early Christian rule, Jews were, at various times, either more or less free to practice their religion. At this time, few non-Christian communities remained in the country, apart from the Jews. Theodosius II (408-450) deprived the Jews of their relative autonomy and their right to hold public positions. Jewish courts were forbidden to sit on mixed Jewish-Christian cases and the construction of new synagogues was prohibited. Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem except on one day a year, to mourn the destruction of the Temple.
At the beginning of the 7th century, the Jews looked to the Persians for salvation. Hoping to be permitted to worship freely once the Byzantine oppression had been removed, the Jews encouraged the Persians' conquest of Acre and Jerusalem, and a Jewish community was subsequently allowed to settle and worship in Jerusalem (614-17), though it was later expelled. Under early Arab rule, a Jewish community was reestablished in Jerusalem and flourished in the 8th century. Jews were even among those who guarded the walls of the Dome of the Rock. In return, they were absolved from paying the poll-tax imposed on all non-Muslims. In the 10th and 11th centuries, however, harsh measures were imposed against the Jews by the Fatimids, who seized power in 969. Though the Jewish academy (Yeshiva) of Jerusalem was compelled by Caliph Al-Hakim to reestablish itself in Ramle, entry to Jerusalem was revived by the "Mourners of Zion", Diaspora Jews who did not cease to lament the destruction of the Temple. This movement, which held that "aliyah" -- ascent to the Land -- would hasten the resurrection of Israel, was at its peak in the 9th-11th centuries. Many Jews came from Byzantium and Iraq and established communities.
The Crusader period in the 12th century brought terrible massacres of Jews by Christians, and the prohibition against living in Jerusalem. After the conquest of the country by Saladin late in the century, the Jewish community in Jerusalem again grew considerably.
In 1211, three hundred rabbis from France and England immigrated as a group, many settling in Jerusalem. After the Mamluks took power in 1250, the famous Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman (Nahmanides), traveled from Spain and settled in Jerusalem.
Jewish communities existed in Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, though under economic stress, and religious and social discrimination. During this period, the Jews in the city were supported in large measure by the tourist trade, commerce and contributions from Jews abroad (Europe, the Mediterranean countries and North Africa), who did what they could to help maintain the center of the Jewish People. The Expulsion from Spain and Portugal, in the late 15th century, led to an influx of Jews into the Land, including Jerusalem.
The 16th and 17th centuries were times of economic hardship for the Jews, during which the population of Jerusalem was somewhat reduced. By the end of the 17th century, however, Jerusalem again emerged as the largest central community of the Jews in the Land. Large numbers of Jews immigrated in the 18th century as a result of the messianic-Shabbatean movement, many coming from Eastern and Central Europe, Italy, and other places. Even so, the majority of Jews in the Land in the 17th and 18th centuries were Sephardic Jews, descendants of those expelled from Spain, and immigrants from Turkey and the Balkan countries.
During the 19th century, immigration increased and the establishment of the modern Zionist movement revitalized the Jewish community throughout Israel. Jerusalem, which in 1800 numbered about 2,000 Jews (out of a total population of 8,750), grew to 11,000 by 1870 (out of 22,000), and 40,000 (out of 60,000) by 1905. It is the political, cultural and religious center of the State of Israel and of the Jewish People around the world.
The Second Fall of Jerusalem
The next few decades were marked by the eruption of sporadic riots in Jerusalem, usually resulting in clashes with Roman troops. By the middle of the 1st century AD, the Jews of Israel had again fought to liberate their country and capital -- but their war against the Romans ended in 70 AD, when the armies of Titus conquered the city and destroyed the Temple. Most residents of Jerusalem had either been killed or had perished from hunger during the Roman siege, and the survivors were sold into slavery or executed. Virtually the entire city was destroyed.
Subsequently, in 130, Emperor Hadrian decided to rebuild Jerusalem as a city -- thus provoking the Second Jewish Revolt against the Romans. Under the leadership of Rabbi Akiva and Bar Kokhba, Jerusalem was once again liberated, although only for two years. Ultimately, Rome crushed the revolt and renamed the city Aelia Capitolina. Later, in the 4th century, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. It was then that Queen Helena and her son, Emperor Constantine, transformed Jerusalem into a Christian center.
Arab and Crusader Eras
Afterward, the First Crusade (1099) conquered Jerusalem, massacring tens of thousands of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. Jerusalem was established as the capital of the Latin Kingdom in the Holy Land. This Kingdom, however, collapsed some decades later. In 1187, Sultan Salah a-Din arrived from Egypt and besieged Jerusalem, ultimately gaining control of the city. Jews began to return to Jerusalem in 1210, ending the short and temporary exile from the city, which had been imposed by the Crusaders. In fact, the Jewish community in Jerusalem continued to expand as Jews immigrated from Europe and the Maghreb.
The Mamluk and Ottoman Periods
In 1517, Jerusalem fell to the Turks, whose rule was to last for exactly four centuries. Initially, Ottoman rule was energetic and beneficent. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the walls and gates of the Old City. However, the death of Suleiman was almost immediately followed by pervasive internal decay which beset the empire, and during the 17th and 18th centuries, Jerusalem experienced the least impressive period of its illustrious past.
Jerusalem entered the 19th century with about 9,000 inhabitants. In 1840, Jews became the largest single community in the city -- accounting for a majority of Jerusalem's residents by 1880. In 1860, Anglo-Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore established the Mishkenot Sha'ananim neighborhood, the first quarter outside the Old City walls. Eventually, this project was followed by many others. In 1900, the city's population reached 55,000; 60% of whom were Jews.
Under British Rule
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Following the World War I victory of the Allies in the Middle East, Britain occupied Mandatory Palestine -- including what is now Jordan, which was separated from the rest of Mandatory Palestine by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill and given to the Hashemite family of Arabia in 1921 -- assuming military and administrative control for the area.
This situation was endorsed by the international community, and in 1922 Britain was awarded the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations -- which entailed, among other things, the fostering of a Jewish National Home in the territory, as proposed by the Balfour Declaration.
During their Mandatory administration of Jerusalem, the British did demonstrate considerable concern for the special character and atmosphere of Jerusalem. The British did, however, pursue policies which promoted conflict between the various populations of Jerusalem -- such as always appointing Arab mayors, although the Jews had long constituted the city's majority.
Between 1920 and 1940, Arab hostility to Jewish immigration and toward the majority Jewish presence in Jerusalem was expressed in increasingly violent attacks against Jewish residents. In 1929, a mob of 2,000 Arabs attacked Jews at the Western Wall and throughout the city, killing six. Continual Arab rioting, mostly violent, led the British government to issue its White Paper of May 1939, which severely restricted Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine. Meanwhile, the Arabs continued to reject all attempts to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.
All attempts to internationalize Jerusalem were also flatly rejected by the Arabs. This approach was best personified by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the British-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who directed the violent suppression of Jewish religious and political rights. His views found their ultimate expression during World War II, in his active support for the Nazis and their genocide against the Jews.
The British ultimately forfeited the Mandate, and departed on 15 May 1948. United Nations Approves Partition On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted to partition Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states -- and to make Jerusalem a "separate body" (corpus separatum) under a special international regime, with "suitable guarantees for the protection of Holy Places."
The Jews accepted the resolution, but the Arabs -- both those living inside and beyond the territory of the Mandate -- rejected the partition resolution and the plan to internationalize Jerusalem, thereby nullifying the proposal.
Between November 1947 and April 1948, Arab bands attacked Jews in Jerusalem itself and on all roads into the city, killing 296. The Arabs also imposed a blockade on the city -- denying food, water and medical supplies to its Jewish population.
Following an armistice signed in April 1949 between Israel and Jordan, Jerusalem was divided for the first time in its millennia-old history. The city was split along the cease-fire lines of the Israeli and Jordanian forces, with several "no-man's land" areas and two demilitarized zones separating the two sides. Still, in breach of the cease-fire agreements, which called for Jewish access to the Jordanian-held areas, the armistice lines ultimately functioned as a frontier dividing the two previously intermingled communities. Mount Scopus was cut off from Israel and, despite the commitments undertaken in the armistice agreement, only minimal Israeli access was allowed. Jordan would not permit the Hebrew University, the library or Hadassah Hospital to operate.
What had been intended as an interim period prior to the reunification of Jerusalem became, for the next 19 years, a border of minefields and barbed wire traversing the city. The Jordanians systematically destroyed the synagogues in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, desecrated the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives and denied Jews the right to worship at Judaism's holiest site, the Western Wall. While concentrating its efforts in the expansion of its capital, Amman, Jordan implemented policies which led to the stagnation of east Jerusalem. Its historical and holy sites became inaccessible to all Jews, as well as to Israeli Christians and Muslims. Meanwhile, west Jerusalem -- the declared capital of Israel -- thrived and developed.
In June 1967, King Hussein of Jordan ignored Israel's pleas (communicated through the UN) to maintain the cease-fire, and Jordan joined other Arab countries in initiating a war against Israel. The Arabs heavily shelled Jewish neighborhoods and their ground forces occupied strategic positions in "no-man's land" areas -- in preparation for further attacks.
In defending itself, Israel gained control of the eastern part of Jerusalem by 7 June; Jerusalem was reunited and Jews were once again able to pray at the Western Wall. The current municipal borders were defined that June, and contemporary Jerusalem began to evolve. The city was opened to all worshippers. Unprecedented development was achieved in the spheres of economics, health, education, art and culture, and the general welfare of its inhabitants. In 1967, the total population of Jerusalem stood at 267,800 -- 196,500 Jews, 60,500 Muslims and 10,800 Christians. In December 1993, there were 567,700 residents of the city -- 406,800 Jews and 160,900 non-Jews.
The Palestinian Claim to Jerusalem
First, not only has Jerusalem never been the capital of an Arab state, but there has never been any state of Palestine. When the Arabs first controlled the region in the Middle Ages, they established their capital in Ramle. Subsequent Arab and Mamluk empires chose to rule from Baghdad and Damascus. The Ottoman sultan resided in Constantinople, now Istanbul. More recently, the Jordanians -- who held the eastern part of the city from 1948 to 1967 -- designated Amman as their capital city.
Second, prior to 1948, Palestinian Arabs refused to accept any of the proposed solutions to the Arab-Jewish conflict. They would not consent to anything short of establishing Arab rule in all of the Palestine Mandate -- and expelling, or killing, all Jews living in that area. In an effort to achieve that objective, the Palestinian Arabs (and the surrounding Arab states) initiated a war against the newly proclaimed State of Israel, hoping to destroy the new country before it could establish itself.
On 30 July 1980, the Knesset adopted the Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel, which states, among other things, that:
Israel has been charged with annexing Jerusalem, either the entire city or at least its eastern side. However, the term "annexation" is an inappropriate description of the measures implemented to apply Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction to any areas of Israel -- including Jerusalem -- because the State of Israel cannot "annex" areas which, until 1948, constituted a part of Mandatory Palestine. Israel neither regards its standing in these areas to be that of an occupying power, nor has it ever regarded the Arab states that invaded Israel in May 1948 as sovereign in the areas of Israel that they seized; the Arab states were, at best, merely belligerent occupants. The Arab residents of those territories, including eastern Jerusalem, became citizens of the country which conquered the territory, Jordan; they never constituted a separate political entity.
Under Knesset legislation, Israel amended the 1967 Municipalities Ordinance to recognize the enlarged area of Jerusalem (in the wake of the Six-Day War) as part of the Municipality of Jerusalem. Accordingly, it is clear that Israel sought to emphasize both that it did not consider itself an occupying power in Jerusalem, and that the status of Jerusalem was different from that of Judea and Samaria -- which are administered under a different legal system.
Moreover, immediately following Israel's reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, Arab residents of Jerusalem were offered full Israeli citizenship. The majority of the Arabs living in Jerusalem chose not to accept Israeli citizenship, but nevertheless, as residents of the city, they were given -- and still retain -- the right to participate in municipal elections and enjoy all economic, cultural and social benefits afforded to Israeli citizens (e.g. membership in Israel's labor federation and national insurance system). Furthermore, Israel's democratic legal system grants equal protection of property, civil and human rights to all residents of Jerusalem.
Thus, the application of Israeli law to eastern Jerusalem is no different in substance from its application in the other parts of Israel that lie beyond the boundaries recommended by the United Nations in 1947.
Possible Solutions to the Issue of Jerusalem's Status Following Jerusalem's reunification, four approaches to resolving the issue of the city's status evolved. The first approach is to redivide the city. The second proposes dividing the city into cantons, according to which population constitutes a majority. The third entails international control over Jerusalem. The fourth proposes recognizing the sovereignty of one nation, while guaranteeing open access and the internal administration of religious places by their adherents.
Redividing the city today is not a viable option. The 19 years between 1948 and 1967, when the city was scarred by barbed wire, walls, and armed troops dividing the population, were unbearable for its residents, limited Jerusalem's natural development, and contrasts with the openness, tolerance and neighborliness of the city since 1967. Any division of the city, even a solely administrative one, is likely to exacerbate tensions among the population and undercut the progress that has been made in so many spheres. Likewise, cantonization would unnaturally divide Jerusalem into enclaves spread throughout the city. The reality is that neighborhoods are not uniformly linked to form exclusively "Jewish" and "Arab" areas. Attempting to combine separate neighborhoods into different municipal units would unravel the social fabric which has been woven in Jerusalem, not to mention lower the quality of municipal services provided to city residents. Similarly, the infrastructure simply does not exist to enable multiple governments to serve residents adequately, in a patchwork of separate cantons located in different sections of the city.
The internationalization proposal appears to be in eclipse. In the late 1960s however, the Arab states (with the exception of Jordan) indicated their preference for that solution -- since it seemed most likely to put an end to Israeli control.
The Vatican, which initially also professed to support the concept, subsequently changed its views in favor of "international guarantees" for the holy places. The practical problems of internationalization would be too numerous to make it feasible -- nothing would be more likely to disrupt the life of a city and its population, than imposing upon it a system of divided, external government, with each factor seeking to further its own, rather than the city's, interests.
In discussing the fourth solution -- recognizing the sovereignty of one nation -- the question of the parties' primary objectives in Jerusalem must be addressed. Israel believes that Jerusalem must function as an increasingly tolerant, peaceful and prosperous city, where a diverse, multi-cultural population may live and work. Israel is committed to ensuring that Jerusalem remains safe and attractive, and that the atmosphere of the city facilitates tourism and worship. The Government of Israel has stated that it is ready to sign international commitments enshrining these principles.
Provided by the Government Press Office
REBUILDING SOLOMON'S TEMPLE
Rebuilding the Temple today
To attempt to tear down and replace these Muslim shrines with a Jewish Temple is impossible in today's political and religious climate. The very idea of doing so at any point in the future constitutes a seemingly unresolvable problem. Nonetheless, the idea of rebuilding the Temple somewhere else is difficult for Jews to accept.
For the last 1900 years, Jews have prayed that God would allow for the rebuilding of the Temple. This prayer is a formal part of the thrice daily Jewish prayer services.
However, not all rabbis agree on what would happen in a rebuilt Temple. It has traditionally been assumed that some sort of animal sacrifices would be reinstituted, in accord with the rules in Leviticus and the Talmud. However there is another opinion, beginning with Maimonides, that God deliberately has moved Jews away from sacrifices towards prayer, as prayer is a higher form of worship. Thus, some rabbis hold that sacrifices would not take place in a rebuilt Temple. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi of the Jewish community in pre-state Israel, holds that sacrifices will not be reinstituted.
A few, very small, Jewish groups support constructing a Third Temple today, but most Jews oppose this, for a variety of reasons. Most religious Jews feel that the Temple should only be rebuilt in the messianic era, and that it would be presumptuous of people to force God's hand, as it were. Furthermore, there are many ritual impurity constrictions that are difficult to resolve, making the building's construction a practical impossibility.
Additionally, many Jews are against rebuilding the Temple due to the enormously hostile reaction from Muslims that would likely result— even were the building to be complementary to those holy to Islam, there would be high suspicion that such a building project would ultimately end with the destruction of these and the rebuilding of the Temple on its original spot.
RED HEIFER BORN - OPENS WAY FOR THIRD TEMPLE
3/16/97 - Sunday Telegraph (London)
According to London's Sunday Telegraph of March 16, 1997, a team of rabbinical experts have confirmed the birth of a red heifer. Such an animal is necessary for purification of the temple site according to Numbers 19:2-7.
Rabbinical teaching states that, since Herod's Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., no flawless red heifer has been born in Israel.
According to the article, the heifer, which is 6 months old now, must be at least 3 years old before it can be used in a ritual sacrifice. [Arutz-7 article below says 2 years old.]
Here is more confirmation of this fascinating development.:
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
9. HOLY COW!
The birth of a red heifer (cow) in a farm in the religious youth
village of Kfar Hasidim (near Haifa) has excited sectors in the
religious community. A delegation of some 25 experts, including Rabbis
Yisrael Ariel and Yoseph Elboim, visited the farm last week to examine
the six-month old cow, and concluded that it is in fact an acceptable
red heifer, according to Torah requirements. However, the cow must be at
least two years old before it can be used. Until then, the cow will be
carefully watched to ensure that nothing occurs to invalidate its
status. According to Biblical law, the cow's ashes are used for
purification from certain forms of impurity, and is therefore a
prerequisite for the renewal of Holy Temple service.
In the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24:15 and
Mark 13:14, Jesus told the disciples about the end-time events and the
abomination of desolation which will take place in the Temple in the
middle of the end-times 7 year period.
The abomination of desolation is when the antichrist stands in the holy place of the rebuilt Temple and falsely declares to the world that he is God. This occurs in the middle of the 7 year end-times period. So if the peace treaty between Israel and the PLO signed on September 13, 1993 was the peace treaty of prophecy, then on February 24, 1997, the abomination of desolation should have occurred in the Temple in Jerusalem. There is no Temple in Jerusalem, and no world leader has declared himself to be God, so we know with 100% certainty that the September 13, 1993 peace treaty was not the peace treaty of prophecy. Let's go back to the book of Daniel to further expand on Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse.
the Day of the Lord which comes after the rapture will not occur unless two major discernible events happen. There will be a great apostasy or falling away from the faith, and the antichrist will sit in the Temple in Jerusalem and falsely declare himself to be God. Are there other scriptures which confirm that the abomination of desolation happens in the middle of the end-times 7 year period? Yes, in Daniel 12, the Angel was told to further elaborate.
Here we are shown again as in Daniel 9:27, that the stopping of the sacrifices and the abomination occur nearly simultaneously. From the abomination of desolation until the Messiah comes in power to reign on the earth is 1290 days (approximately 3.5 years or half of the week of years mentioned in Daniel 9:27). Then 45 days later (the 1335 days), the fulfillment of Yom Kippur as prophecy takes place. Messiah will judge Judah and Israel and forgive their sins after the terrible time they went through during the Days of Awe, and they will be made into one nation again.
This abomination of desolation takes place on earth not in heaven. If you've ever seen it, the Temple in heaven is built into the throne of God our Father, which is why it is written that His train fills the Temple. His seat is above the most holy place of the Temple in heaven, and is the eternal mercy seat, of which the mercy seat on top of the ark of the covenant was a pale representation. There is no way that Satan or the antichrist can be in heaven and take over the throne area of God. If they could, then God wouldn't be capable of maintaining even the area around His throne. Because Jesus sits there at the right hand of God our Father, then the impossible occurs as Satan would be able to triumph over Jesus at His very throne. There is no possible way that the abomination of desolation could take place in heaven unless Jesus and God our Father were not omnipotent. The reason this last paragraph is included is that some have thought that perhaps these events take place in heaven rather than literally on earth. Satan cannot even approach the throne of God let alone triumph over Him.
OTHER WRITINGS ABOUT ISRAEL ON THIS SITE