Jesus Christ, the new Temple, is able to hand out forgiveness

“Jesus handed out forgiveness whenever anyone humbly approached him. He acted like a mobile temple”. John Dickson John Dickson well explained this situation in this 2018 article: https://www.johndickson.org/blog/2018/2/7/jesus-as-the-temple Jesus as Temple - a forgotten aspect of his own claim to authority …. The temple was the centre of Israel’s national and religious life. This was where God chose to dwell, according to the Hebrew Scriptures; it was where sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins could be made; it was where the country’s leading teachers could be heard in the vast temple courts; it was where pilgrims gathered in tens of thousands, especially at Passover time, to sing and pray to the one true God. For the devout Jew, arriving at the crest of the Mount of Olives and looking down at the temple of God must have stirred up extraordinary feelings of national pride and spiritual awe. In the midst of this already heightened sense of occasion, toward the end of his public career as a teacher and healer, Jesus entered the Jerusalem Temple and proceeded to pronounce judgement on it—as if he had authority even over this central symbol of Israel’s faith: “Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers’.” — Matthew 21:12–13 It is hardly surprising that Jesus would be dead by the end of the week. It is also not surprising that one of the central charges laid against him at his trial was his reported contempt for the temple. Matthew’s Gospel records: “Finally two came forward and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer?’” — Matthew 26:60–62 Jesus did not answer this charge …. Historically revealing is the fact that in the Gospel of John’s account of the clearing of the temple (probably written independently of the other three Gospels) we hear a statement from Jesus that comes very close to the one recalled at his trial: “The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. ” — John 2:18–22 At first sight, this is a bizarre statement: Jesus’ body, crucified and raised, is the temple! However, this is not the first time Jesus has identified himself with the temple. The theme emerges a number of times in the Gospels. We get hints of it every time Jesus hands out divine forgiveness to people. In first-century Judaism, only the temple priests could pronounce forgiveness, and, even then, only after the appropriate sacrifice had been offered. This is why, after Jesus forgave the prostitute at the home of Simon the Pharisee, as discussed in the previous chapter, the guests murmured, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” (Luke 7:49b). Jesus handed out forgiveness whenever anyone humbly approached him. He acted like a mobile temple. An explicit comparison between Jesus and the temple is found in Matthew 12 in a scene set long before Jesus took on the temple priests. The Pharisees had criticised Jesus’ disciples for doing what looked like work on the Sabbath day. Jesus responded: “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath day [i.e., do work on the Sabbath] and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. ” — Matthew 12:3–6 The logic goes like this: priests are exempt from the Sabbath law when working within the precinct of the temple; how much more then are the disciples exempt when working in the vicinity of the Messiah. Jesus, according to these words, is more than the temple. This is an extraordinary statement in its first-century context. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, entered the temple and declared its ministry bankrupt, he was not acting as a mere religious radical. According to the witness of the Gospel writers, he was acting as God’s replacement temple, or, perhaps more accurately, as the reality to which the temple pointed all along. All that the temple had meant for Israel for almost one thousand years was now to be found in Israel’s Messiah. The presence of God which human beings so longed for was to be found through a personal connection with Christ …. The hunger for divine teaching could be satisfied, not in the courts of a glorious sanctuary, but by feeding on the words of Jesus. True “pilgrims” could henceforth declare their praises, not within the walls of one sacred building, but wherever people gathered in honour of the Messiah. And forgiveness of sins could be enjoyed through the one priestly sacrifice of Jesus, not through priest and sacrifice. The Jerusalem temple was eventually destroyed some forty years after Jesus’ death, when in August AD 70 Roman troops stormed Jerusalem to end a bitter five-year rebellion. …. From the point of view of the first followers of Jesus, the temple was really overthrown and replaced around AD 30. From the time of Christ’s death and resurrection, said the early Christians, a new temple was established for all nations. All who want to locate the Creator’s presence, learn his teaching, and enjoy his forgiveness can do so simply by embracing the Messiah, the new temple.

Fr. Raymond Brown’s fatal differences between early Matthew and Luke

“Brown sees these differences as fatal to the possible harmony of the two accounts, stating that they are irreconcilable at several points”. Ian Paul Theologian Ian Paul provides a sensible perspective regarding the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke in contrast to Fr. Raymond Brown’s messing with the Messiah: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/myth-and-history-in-the-epiphany-of-matthew-2/ Myth and history in the Epiphany of Matthew 2 December 29, 2021 by Ian Paul ________________________________________ …. ________________________________________ The Feast of the Epiphany in the church’s liturgical calendar is based on the events of Matt 2.1–12, the visit of the ‘wise men’ from the East to the infant Jesus. There are plenty of things about the story which might make us instinctively treat it as just another part of the constellation of Christmas traditions, which does not have very much connection with reality—and these questions are raised each year at this feast. The first is the sparseness of the story. As with other parts of the gospels, the details are given to us in bare outline compared with what we are used to in modern literature. We are told little of the historical reality that might interest us, and the temptation is to fill in details for ourselves. This leads to the second issue—the development of sometimes quite elaborate traditions which do the work of filling in for us. So these ‘magoi’ (which gives us our word ‘magic’) became ‘three’ (because of the number of their gifts), then ‘wise men’ and then ‘kings’ (probably under the influence of Ps 72.10. By the time of this Roman mosaic from the church in Ravenna built in 547, they have even acquired names. Christopher Howse comments: [T]hink how deeply these three men have entered our imagination as part of the Christmas story. “A cold coming they had of it at this time of the year, just the worst time of the year to take a journey, and specially a long journey, in. The ways deep, the weather sharp, the days short, the sun farthest off, in solstitio brumali, the very dead of winter.” Those words, in a tremendous sermon by Lancelot Andrewes that King James I heard on Christmas Day 1622, were brilliantly stolen by TS Eliot and incorporated into his poem The Journey of the Magi. And we can see it all: the camels’ breath steaming in the night air as the kings, in their gorgeous robes of silk and cloth-of-gold and clutching their precious gifts, kneel to adore the baby in the manger. Yet, that is not entirely what the Gospel says… But for any careful readers of the gospels, there is a third question: how does the visit of the magi fit in with the overall birth narrative, and in particular can Matthew’s account be reconciled with Luke’s? Andreas Köstenberger and Alexander Stewart address this question in The First Days of Jesus pp 164–167, in dialogue with Raymond Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah (1993). Brown notes the points that Matthew and Luke share in common: 1. The parents are named as Mary and Joseph, who are legally engaged or married but have not yet come to live together or have sexual relations (Matt 1.18, Luke 1.27, 34) 2. Joseph is of Davidic descent (Matt 1.16, 20, Luke 1.27, 32, 2.4) 3. An angel announces the forthcoming birth of the child (Matt 1.20–23 Luke 1.30–35) 4. The conception of the child is not through intercourse with her husband (Matt 1.20, 23, 25, Luke 1.34) 5. The conception is through the Holy Spirit (Matt 1.18, 20, Luke 1.35) 6. The angel directs them to name the child Jesus (Matt 1.21, Luke 2.11) 7. An angel states that Jesus is to be Saviour (Matt 1.21, Luke 2.11) 8. The birth of the child takes place after the parents have come to live together (Matt 1.24–25, Luke 2.5–6) 9. The birth takes place in Bethlehem (Matt 2.1, Luke 2.4–6). This is a surprisingly long list, and Brown’s careful examination produces a longer list of points of agreement than is usual noted. But even a cursory reading highlights the differences, not just in style and concern in the narrative, but in material content. Luke includes the angelic announcements to Zechariah and Mary, Mary’s visit to Elizabeth and the ‘Magnificat’, the birth of John the Baptist, Zechariah’s song (the ‘Benedictus’), the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Jesus being laid in the food-trough, the lack of space in the guest room, the angelic announcement to the shepherds, and the presentation in the temple with Simeon and Anna—all omitted from Matthew. On the other hand, Matthew includes the visit of the magi, Herod’s plot, the escape to Egypt, the slaughter of the ‘innocents’, and Joseph’s decision about where to settle—all omitted from Luke. As Richard Bauckham notes, Luke’s is a largely ‘gynocentric’ narrative, focussing on the experiences, decisions and faithfulness of the women, whilst Matthew’s is largely an ‘androcentric’ narrative, focussing much more on the roles, decisions and actions of the men involved. Brown sees these differences as fatal to the possible harmony of the two accounts, stating that they are irreconcilable at several points. But Köstenberger and Stewart disagree: Nothing that Matthew says actually contradicts Luke’s account about Mary and Joseph being in Nazareth prior to the birth. Matthew is silent on the matter…[which] simply indicates his ignorance of or lack of interest in these details for the purpose of his narrative…Narrators commonly compress time and omit details (either from ignorance or conscious choice). Luke’s reference to the family’s return to Nazareth after the presentation of the temple does not contradict the events recorded in Matthew 2; he just doesn’t comment on them. Again, silence does not equal contradiction (pp 166–167). Luke’s conclusion, in Luke 2.39, is sometimes seen as creating a difficulty; the most natural way to read the English ‘When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth’ (TNIV) is as a temporal marker, suggesting an immediate return. But the Greek phrase kai hos can have a range of meanings; the emphasis for Luke here is that, since they had done everything, they were able to leave, contributing to Luke’s consistent theme throughout the early chapters that Joseph and Mary, along with other characters in the story, are obedient, Torah-observant, pious Jews. What is interesting here is that we have two quite different accounts, working from different sources, with different aims—and yet in agreement on all the main details. Normally in scholarly discussion, this double testimony would be counted as evidence of reliability and historicity, rather than a contradiction to it. ________________________________________ In response to this, critical scholarship has moved in the other direction, and by and large has pulled apart Matthew’s story and confidently decided that none of it actually happened—in part because of the supposed contradictions with Luke, but in even larger part because of Matthew’s use of Old Testament citations. Thus it is read as having been constructed by Matthew out of a series of OT texts in order to tell us the real significance of Jesus. So Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan, in The First Christmas: what the gospels really teach about Jesus’ birth, come to this conclusion: In our judgement, there was no special star, no wise men and no plot by Herod to kill Jesus. So is the story factually true? No. But as a parable, is it true? For us as Christians, the answer is a robust affirmative. Is Jesus light shining in the darkness? Yes. Do the Herods of this world seek to extinguish the light? Yes. Does Jesus still shine in the darkness? Yes (p 184). The approach presents problems of its own. For one, the stories are not presented as parables, but in continuity with the events Matthew relates in Jesus’ life later in the gospel. For another, if God in Jesus did not outwit Herod, on what grounds might we think he can outwit ‘the Herods of this world’? More fundamentally, Matthew and his first readers appeared to believe that the claims about Jesus were ‘parabolically true’ because these things actually happened. If none of them did, what grounds do we now have? Even if the events we read about are heavily interpreted, there is an irreducible facticity in testimony; if this has gone, we ought to question the value of the testimony itself. ________________________________________ A good working example of this approach is found in Paul Davidson’s blog. Davidson is a professional translator, rather than a biblical studies academic, but he offers a good outline of what critical scholarship has to say about Matthew’s nativity. His basic assumption is that Matthew is a ‘multi-layered’ document—Matthew is writing from the basis of other, differing sources. He takes over large parts of Mark’s gospel, as does Luke, and Matthew and Luke never agree in contradiction to Mark, a key piece of the argument of ‘Marcan priority’, that Mark was earlier than either of the other two. Whether or not you believe in the existence of the so-called Q, another early written source (and with Mark Goodacre, I don’t), Matthew is clearly dealing with some pre-existing material, oral or written. It is striking, for example, that Joseph is a central character in Matthew’s account before and after the story of the magi, and is the key actor in contrast to Luke’s nativity, where the women are central. Yet in this section (Matt 2.1–12) the focus is on ‘the child’ or ‘the child and his mother Mary’ (Matt 2.9, 2.11; see also Matt 2.14, 20 and 21). Some scholars therefore argue that this story comes from a different source, and so might be unhistorical. This is where we need to start being critical of criticism. Handling texts in this way requires the making of some bold assumptions, not least that of author invariants. If a change of style indicates a change of source, then this can only be seen if the writer is absolutely consistent in his (or her) own writing, and fails to make the source material his or her own. In other words, we … need to be a lot smarter than the writer him- or herself. Even a basic appreciation of writing suggests that authors are just not that consistent. Davidson goes on in his exploration to explain the story of the star in terms of OT source texts. The basis for the star and the magi comes from Numbers 22–24, a story in which Balaam, a soothsayer from the east (and a magus in Jewish tradition) foretells the coming of a great ruler “out of Jacob”. Significantly, the Greek version of this passage has messianic overtones, as it replaces “sceptre” in 24:17 with “man.” He is quite right to identify the connections here; any good commentary will point out these allusions, and it would be surprising if Matthew, writing what most would regard as a ‘Jewish’ gospel, was not aware of this. But if he is using these texts as a ‘source’, he is not doing a very good job. The star points to Jesus, but Jesus is not described as a ‘star’, and no gospels make use of this as a title. In fact, this is the only place where the word ‘star’ occurs in the gospel. (It does occur as a title in Rev 22.16, and possibly in 2 Peter 1.19, but neither text makes any connection with this passage.) ________________________________________ Next, Davidson looks at the citation in Matt 2.5–6, which for many critical scholars provides the rationale for a passage explaining that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when he is otherwise universally known as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (19 times in all four gospels and Acts). But, as Davidson points out, Matthew has to work hard to get these texts to help him. For one, he has to bolt together two texts which are otherwise completely unconnected, from Micah 5.2 and 2 Sam 5.2. Secondly, he has to change the text of Micah 5.2 so that: • Bethlehem, the ‘least’ of the cities of Judah, now becomes ‘by no means the least’; • the well-known epithet ‘Ephrathah’ becomes ‘Judah’ to make the geography clear; and • the ‘clans’ becomes ‘clan leader’ i.e. ‘ruler’ to make the text relevant. Moreover, Matthew is making use of a text which was not known as ‘messianic’; in the first century, the idea that messiah had to come from Bethlehem as a son of David was known but not very widespread. All this is rather bad news for those who would argue that Jesus’ birth was carefully planned to be a literal fulfilment of OT prophecy. But it is equally bad news for those who argue that Matthew made the story up to fit such texts, and for exactly the same reason. Of course, Matthew is working in a context where midrashic reading of texts means that they are a good deal more flexible than we would consider them. But he is needing to make maximum use of this flexibility, and the logical conclusion of this would be that he was constrained by the other sources he is using—by the account he has of what actually happened. ________________________________________ Davidson now turns to consider the magi and the star. He notes a certain coherence up to the point where the magi arrive in Jerusalem. So far, the story makes logical sense despite its theological problems (e.g. the fact that it encourages people to believe in the “deceptive science of astrology”, as Strauss noted). The star is just that: a star. Then everything changes. The star is transformed into an atmospheric light that guides the magi right from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, where it hovers over a single house—the one where the child is. We are no longer dealing with a distant celestial body, but something else entirely, like a pixie or will-o’-the-wisp. Mackey’s comment: But see e.g. my article: The Magi and the Star that Stopped: (5) The Magi and the Star that Stopped Ian Paul continues: Here again critical assumptions need some critical reflection. Matthew’s inclusion of magi is theologically very problematic indeed. Simon Magus and Elymas (Acts 8.9, 13.8) hardly get a good press, not surprising in light of OT prohibitions on sorcery, magic and astrology. Western romanticism has embraced the Epiphany as a suggestive mystery, but earlier readings (like that of Irenaeus) saw the point as the humiliation of paganism; the giving of the gifts was an act of submission and capitulation to a greater power. For Matthew the Jew, they are an unlikely and risky feature to include, especially when Jesus is clear he has come to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt 10.6, 15.24). There have been many attempts to explain the appearance of the star scientifically. …. And any naturalistic explanations miss Matthew’s central point: this was something miraculous provided by God. If you don’t think the miraculous is possible, you are bound to disbelieve Matthew’s story—but on the basis of your own assumptions, not on any criteria of historical reliability or the nature of Matthew’s text. Davidson cites the 19th-century rationalist critic David Friedrich Strauss in his objection to the plausibility of Herod’s action: With regard to Herod’s instructions to report back to him, Strauss notes that surely the magi would have seen through his plan at once. There were also less clumsy methods Herod might have used to find out where the child was; why did he not, for example, send companions along with the magi to Bethlehem? In fact, we know from Josephus that Herod had a fondness for using secret spies. And in terms of the story, the magi are unaware of Herod’s motives; we are deploying our prior knowledge of the outcome to decide what we think Herod ought to have done, which is hardly a good basis for questioning Matthew’s credibility. ________________________________________ Finally, we come to the arrival of the magi at the home of the family. Interestingly, Matthew talks of their ‘house’ (Matt 2.11) which supports the idea that Jesus was not born in a stable—though from the age of children Herod has executed (less than two years) we should think of the magi arriving some time after the birth. Mackey’s comment: But see e.g. my article: Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers (5) Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers Ian Paul continues: No shepherds and magi together here! (It is worth noting, though, that forming a ‘tableau’ of different elements of a narrative, all compressed together, is a common feature of artistic depictions of stories. We just need to be aware of what is going in here in the compression of narrative time.) Davidson again sees (with critical scholars) this event constructed from OT texts: According to Brown, Goulder (2004), and others, the Old Testament provided the inspiration for the gifts of the magi. This passage is an implicit citation of Isaiah 60.3, 6 and Psalm 72.10, 15, which describe the bringing of gifts in homage to the king, God’s royal son. But again, the problem here is that Matthew’s account just doesn’t fit very well. Given that these OT texts uniformly mention kings, not magi, if Matthew was constructing his account from these, why choose the embarrassing astrologers? And why three gifts rather than two? Where has the myrrh come from? Again, it is Irenaeus who first interprets the gifts as indicators of kingship, priesthood and sacrificial death respectively, but Matthew does not appear to do so. In the narrative, they are simply extravagant gifts fit for the true ‘king of the Jews’. Subsequent tradition has to do the work that Matthew has here failed to do, and make the story fit the prophecies rather better than Matthew has managed to. Davidson closes his analysis of this section with a final observation from Strauss: If the magi can receive divine guidance in dreams, why are they not told in a dream to avoid Jerusalem and go straight to Bethlehem in the first place? Many innocent lives would have been saved that way. Clearly, God could have done a much better job of the whole business. But it rather appears as though Matthew felt unable to improve on what happened by fitting it either to the OT texts or his sense of what ought to have happened. The modern reader might struggle with aspects of Matthew’s story. But it seems to me you can only dismiss it by making a large number of other, unwarranted assumptions. ….

Mary as the Mother of God - pope Francis

Taken from: https://www.popefrancis2024.sg/mary-the-mother-of-god-and-our-mother/#:~:text=Mother%20of%20us%20all&text=Who%20can%20fill%20our%20emptiness,our%20eyes%20to%20their%20fullness. Mary, the Mother of God, and our Mother Michelle Tan for The Catholic News Singapore “If we want to be Christians, we must be ‘Marians’, that is, ‘children of Mary’,” declared Pope Francis at the Mass for the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God, on Jan 1, 2024, in Saint Peter’s Basilica. “The motherhood of Mary is the path leading us to the paternal tenderness of God, the closest, most direct and easiest of paths: this is God’s ‘style’ – closeness, compassion, and tenderness,” he said. “Indeed, the Mother leads us to the beginning and heart of faith, which is not a theory or a task, but a boundless gift that makes us beloved sons and daughters, tabernacles of the Father’s love. It follows that welcoming the Mother into our lives is not a matter of devotion but a requirement of faith.” Mother of God Pope Francis began his homily by explaining the meaning of Saint Paul’s words in the Second Reading: When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman (Galatians 4:4). “In ancient times, time was measured using vases of water; the passage of time was marked by how long it took for an empty vase to be filled,” shared the Pope. “The phrase ‘fullness of time’ means that, once the vase of history is filled, divine grace spills over. God becomes man and He does so through a woman, Mary: she is the means chosen by God, the culmination of that long line of individuals and generations that ‘drop by drop’ prepared for the Lord’s coming into the world. It pleased God to turn history around through her, the ‘woman’.” The words ‘Mother of God’ are therefore a “dogma of hope” that express “the joyful certainty that the Lord, a tiny Child in His Mamma’s arms, has united Himself forever to our humanity, to the point that it is no longer only ours, but His as well” – a confession of God’s eternal covenant with humanity, he added. The Pope then called on the Church and every society to respect, defend, and esteem women “in the knowledge that whosoever harms a single woman profanes God, who was ‘born of a woman’”. Mother of us all “Just as Mary, the woman, played a decisive role in the fullness of time, she is also decisive in the lives of each of us, for no one knows better than a Mother the stages of growth and the urgent needs of her children,” observed the Holy Father. Referring to the Mary’s intercession for the wedding couple at Cana who had run out of wine (John 2:1-12), he said, “Mary knows our needs; she intercedes to make grace overflow in our lives and to guide them to authentic fulfilment. Brothers and sisters, all of us have our shortcomings, our times of loneliness, our inner emptiness that cries out to be filled. Who can fill our emptiness if not Mary, the Mother of fullness?” Pope Francis concluded his homily with the exhortation, “Let us entrust this coming year to the Mother of God. Let us consecrate our lives to her. With tender love, she will open our eyes to their fullness. For she will lead us to Jesus, who is Himself ‘the fullness of time, of every time, of our own time, of each one of us.”

John correct about Pool of Siloam

Taken from: The Siloam Pool: Where Jesus Healed the Blind Man - Biblical Archaeology Society The Siloam Pool: Where Jesus Healed the Blind Man A sacred Christian site identified by archaeologists BAS Staff July 04, 2024 …. The Siloam Pool has long been considered a sacred Christian site, even if the correct identification of the site itself was uncertain. According to the Gospel of John, it was at the Siloam Pool where Jesus healed the blind man (John 9:1–11). Traditionally, the Christian site of the Siloam Pool was the pool and church that were built by the Byzantine empress Eudocia (c. 400–460 A.D.) to commemorate the miracle recounted in the New Testament. However, the exact location of the original pool as it existed during the time of Jesus remained a mystery until June 2004. In 2004, the stepped remains of the ancient Siloam Pool, long thought to be located elsewhere, were uncovered near the City of David. According to the Gospel of John, it was at this sacred Christian site that Jesus healed the blind man. Photo: Todd Bolen/BiblePlaces.com. During construction work to repair a large water pipe south of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, at the southern end of the ridge known as the City of David, archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron identified two ancient stone steps. Further excavation revealed that they were part of a monumental pool from the Second Temple period, the period in which Jesus lived. The structure Reich and Shukron discovered was 225 feet long, with corners that are slightly greater than 90 degrees, indicating a trapezoidal shape, with the widening end oriented toward Tyropoeon valley. ________________________________________ ________________________________________ The Siloam Pool is adjacent to the area in the ancient City of David known as the King’s Garden and is just southeast of the remains of the fifth-century church and pool traditionally believed to be the sacred Christian site. Artist’s rendering of the Siloam Pool, the Biblical Christian site where Jesus healed the blind man. Image: Jason Clarke. What was the function of the Siloam Pool during Jesus’ time? Because the pool is fed by waters from the Gihon Spring, located in the Kidron Valley, the naturally flowing spring water would have qualified the pool for use as a mikveh for ritual bathing. However, it could also have been an important source of fresh water for the inhabitants on that part of the city. One scholar has even suggested that it was a Roman-style swimming pool. Whatever its original purpose, the Siloam Pool where Jesus healed the blind man is an important Christian site, and its discovery represents a watershed moment in the field of Biblical archaeology. As with many sites in the Holy Land, the origins of the Siloam Pool reach back even further in history—at least seven centuries before the time of Jesus. Judah’s King Hezekiah (late eighth century B.C.) correctly anticipated a siege against Jerusalem by the Assyrian monarch Sennacherib. ________________________________________ Learn more about Hezekiah’s Tunnel, including recent attempts to redate the water tunnel and assign its construction to King Hezekiah’s predecessor or successors, in “Hezekiah’s Tunnel Reexamined.” ________________________________________ To protect the city’s water supply during the siege, Hezekiah undertook a strategic engineering project that would be an impressive feat in any age: He ordered the digging of a 1,750-foot tunnel under the City of David to bring water from the Gihon Spring, which lay outside the city wall, inside the city to a pool on the opposite side of the ridge. In the years that followed, “Hezekiah’s Tunnel” continued to carry fresh water to this section of Jerusalem, and different pools were built here over the centuries, including the Second Temple pool that Jesus knew.

Pope condemns cruel bombing in Gaza

Taken from: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241221-pope-slams-cruelty-of-strike-killing-gaza-children Pope slams 'cruelty' of strike killing Gaza children Vatican City (AFP) – Pope Francis on Saturday condemned the bombing of children in Gaza as "cruelty", sparking a sharp response from Israel which accused him of double standards. 'This is cruelty, this is not war,' said Pope Francis © Omar AL-QATTAA / AFP The pontiff made his remarks a day after the rescue agency in Gaza said an Israeli air strike had killed seven children from one family. "Yesterday they did not allow the Patriarch (of Jerusalem) into Gaza as promised," the pope told members of the government of the Holy See. "Yesterday children were bombed. This is cruelty, this is not war. "I want to say it because it touches my heart." In a statement, an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman described the pope's remarks as "particularly disappointing as they are disconnected from the true and factual context of Israel's fight against jihadist terrorism -- a multi-front war that was forced upon it starting on October 7." "Enough with the double standards and the singling out of the Jewish state and its people," he added. "Cruelty is terrorists hiding behind children while trying to murder Israeli children; cruelty is holding 100 hostages for 442 days, including a baby and children, by terrorists and abusing them," the Israeli statement said. This was a reference to the Palestinian Hamas militants who attacked Israel, killed many civilians and took hostages on October 7, 2023, triggering the Gaza war. Tougher line Gaza's civil defence rescue agency reported that an Israeli air strike had killed 10 members of a family on Friday in the northern part of the territory, including seven children. The Israeli military told AFP it had struck "several terrorists who were operating in a military structure belonging to the Hamas terrorist organisation and posed a threat to IDF troops operating in the area". "According to an initial examination, the reported number of casualties resulting from the strike does not align with the information held by the IDF," it added. Violence in the Gaza Strip continues to rock the coastal territory more than 14 months into the Israel-Hamas war, even as international mediators work to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas Palestinian militants. Francis, 88, has called for peace since the war started. In recent weeks he has hardened his remarks against the Israeli offensive. In late November he said "the invader's arrogance... prevails over dialogue" in "Palestine", a rare position that contrasts with the tradition of neutrality of the Holy See. In a recently published book the pope called for a "careful" study as to whether the situation in Gaza "corresponds to the technical definition" of genocide, an accusation firmly rejected by Israel. Since 2013 the Holy See has recognised the State of Palestine, with which it maintains diplomatic relations, and it supports the two-state solution. The October 7, 2023 Hamas attack resulted in the deaths of 1,208 people, most of them civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli figures. Hamas militants also took 251 hostages, of whom 96 remain in Gaza, including 34 the Israeli military says are dead. Israel's retaliatory offensive in Gaza has killed at least 45,206 people, a majority of them civilians, according to figures from the Hamas-run territory's health ministry that the United Nations considers reliable. © 2024 AFP

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).

Infused Hope needed for us to remain unshakable in the face of World War III

“HOPE - is a divine infused virtue by which, with certain confidence, relying on God’s goodness and promises, we expect to attain eternal life, and the means to attain it. This virtue enables us to live the Christian life without the uncertainty and inconstancy of human hope, but with the unshakable support of God on Whom we rely. While faith gives light, hope gives confidence. It eliminates discouragement from faults, temptation and aridities found in every life. The more one advances in the Christian life the stronger hope must be, for the struggles become more difficult, the sacrifices greater, and the operations of grace more difficult to understand. This virtue is brought to its highest perfection by the Gift of Fear of the Lord”. Father Paul A. Duffner, O.P. Pope Francis has designated next year, 2025, to be a Holy Year. He wants the coming Jubilee Year 2025 to be lived as a “year of hope,” very symbolic in times when the world’s wars seem to be unending and multiplying. We read of this at: https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/the-jubilee-year-2025-a-holy-year-of-hope/ The Jubilee Year 2025 – a Holy Year of Hope Pilgrims to Rome — and “spiritual pilgrims” — can receive special graces during the coming Jubilee By Anna Artymiak This year on Christmas Eve, 2024, Pope Francis, like Pope John Paul II in 1999, will open the Holy Door to begin a Jubilee Year in 2025. It will be an ordinary holy year — in accordance with the tradition of the Church to celebrate such a year every 25 years, to give every generation a chance to experience that special time of grace and mercy in their life. Those who participate in a Holy Year pilgrimage are granted a plenary indulgence; those who are unable to attend in person for concrete reasons are invited to participate spiritually, “offering up the sufferings of their daily lives, and participating in the Eucharistic celebration.” The last ordinary holy year, the Great Jubilee Year of 2000, which took place under John Paul II, was one of the biggest events in the history of mankind. The Holy Father Francis wants the coming Jubilee Year 2025 to be lived as a “year of hope,” very symbolic in times when the world’s wars seem to be unending and multiplying. Catholic tradition refers back to the Jewish tradition of the “jubilees” present in the Bible (cf. Leviticus 25:8-13), although in Rome it was started simply for pilgrims. In preparation for the coming holy year, Pope Francis has decided to dedicate the year 2024 to prayer in its personal and community dimension. The term “Jubilee” comes from the name of an instrument, the yobel, the ram’s horn, used by Jews in Biblical times to proclaim the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). …. Whilst not being overly pessimistic or negative, we live in a generation that is on par with that of Noah, or that of Jesus Christ, as a “wicked and adulterous generation” (Matthew 16:4). Neither one of these ended well. Despite the conditional warnings at Fatima in 1917, we have plunged from one war into another, “the world’s wars seem to be unending and multiplying”, and we can no longer justifiably expect to avoid the last predicted woe, “certain nations will be annihilated”. July 13. 1917 ‘To prevent this, I shall come to the world to ask that Russia be consecrated to my Immaculate Heart, and I shall ask that on the First Saturday of every month Communions of reparation be made in atonement for the sins of the world. If my wishes are fulfilled, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, then Russia will spread her errors throughout the world, bringing new wars and persecution of the Church; the good will be martyred and the Holy Father will have much to suffer; certain nations will be annihilated. But in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and the world will enjoy a period of peace ...’. Stay in God’s grace. The Psalmists expressed an abundance of Hope when they exclaimed (Psalm 45:3-5 Douay; 46:2-3 NIV): Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging.