Jesus Christ most aptly described as a “Lamb”

“Paul states, “Our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Jesus' death on the cross was a passover from death to life for himself and for all of us. By his blood we are saved from death. Jesus made it possible for us to break out of the slavery of sin and death. He gave us the hope of reaching our promised land, heaven”. Loyola Press Jesus the Lamb of God At Loyola Press we read: https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/scripture-and-tradition/jesus-and-the-new-testament/who-do-you-say-that-i-am-names-for-jesus/jesus-the-lamb-of-god/ Have you ever had a lamb cake as part of your Easter celebration? Have you seen art that shows a lamb holding a triumphant banner? The lamb as a symbol for Christ has its roots in the Old Testament. For centuries people worshipped God by sacrificing animals. They killed them and offered them to God. For the Jews a lamb was the main animal of sacrifice. In the Temple a lamb was offered every day. The sacrifice of a lamb also played an important part in the Exodus. In the biblical story of the Exodus, God led the Israelites out of Egypt, where they were slaves, and into the promised land. On the night God's people were to depart, the firstborn in all the Egyptian families died. The firstborn of the Israelites were saved because God had instructed them to kill a lamb or goat and mark their doorposts with its blood. The angel of death then knew to pass over those houses. The Israelites ate the lamb in a meal before they left. The lamb was to have no blemish, and none of its bones were to be broken. To this day the Jews remember this night with the Feast of Passover. On this day they share a special meal called a Seder meal. The shank of a lamb is one item on the Seder plate. Jesus is called the lamb of God because he is the perfect sacrifice offered to God. In 1 Peter 1:18-19 we are told, “You were ransomed . . . not with perishable things like silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.” A prophecy about the Messiah states, “Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter” (Isaiah 53:7). After Jesus' crucifixion, soldiers did not break his legs to kill him because he was already dead. Like the Passover lamb, his bones were unbroken. Paul states, “Our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Jesus' death on the cross was a passover from death to life for himself and for all of us. By his blood we are saved from death. Jesus made it possible for us to break out of the slavery of sin and death. He gave us the hope of reaching our promised land, heaven. The Gospel of John clearly compares Jesus to the Passover lamb by saying that Jesus was crucified the same day that the Passover lambs were being killed in the Temple (John 19:31). In the Gospel of John it was John the Baptist who gave Jesus the title Lamb of God (John 1:29). The Book of Revelation speaks of the Lamb at least 29 times. In a vision John sees a lamb. Four living creatures and 24 elders fall before the Lamb and sing praise because he purchased all people with his blood (Revelation 5:9). † Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us! † Response to a Jewish reader who wrote: “Jesus was never a lamb”.

Israeli archaeologists can never destroy the wise King Solomon

by Damien F. Mackey “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” Israel Finkelstein Reference is made in El Amarna [EA] letters 74 and 290 to a place-name that professor Julius Lewy read as Bet Shulmanu - House (or Sanctuary) of Shulman (“The Sulman Temple in Jerusalem”, Journal of Biblical Literature LIX (1940), pp. 519 ff.). EA 290 was written by the King of Urusalim, Abdi-Hiba, who had to be, according to the conventional chronology, a C14th BC pagan ruler of what we know as Jerusalem. This view of Abdi-Hiba is summed up in the Wikipedia article, “Abdi-Heba”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi-Heba Abdi-Heba (Abdi-Kheba, Abdi-Hepat, or Abdi-Hebat) was a local chieftain of Jerusalem during the Amarna period (mid-1330s BC). Abdi-Heba's name can be translated as "servant of Hebat", a Hurrian goddess. Whether Abdi-Heba was himself of Hurrian descent is unknown, as is the relationship between the general populace of pre-Israelite Jerusalem (called, several centuries later, Jebusites in the Bible) and the Hurrians. Egyptian documents have him deny he was a ḫazānu and assert he is a soldier (we'w), the implication being he was the son of a local chief sent to Egypt to receive military training there.[1] Also unknown is whether he was part of a dynasty that governed Jerusalem or whether he was put on the throne by the Egyptians. Abdi-Heba himself notes that he holds his position not through his parental lineage but by the grace of Pharaoh, but this might be flattery rather than an accurate representation of the situation. …. [End of quote] From a revisionist perspective, this is all quite incorrect. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had argued most compellingly in his Ages in Chaos, I (1952) and Oedipus and Ikhnaton (1960), that the EA era actually belonged to, not the C14th BC, but the C9th BC era of Israel’s Divided Kingdom. And it is from such a revised perspective that Dr. Velikovsky was able to make this thrilling comment about professor Lewy’s reading: [http://www.varchive.org/ce/sultemp.htm] The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem …. From a certain passage in letter No. 290, written by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, Lewy concluded that this city was known at that time also by the name “Temple of Šulmán.” Actually, Lewy read the ideogram that had much puzzled the researchers before him. …. After complaining that the land was falling to the invading bands (habiru), the king of Jerusalem wrote: “. . . and now, in addition, the capital of the country of Jerusalem — its name is Bit Šulmáni —, the king’s city, has broken away . . .”…. Beth Šulmán in Hebrew, as Professor Lewy correctly translated, is Temple of Šulmán. But, of course, writing in 1940, Lewy could not surmise that the edifice was the Temple of Solomon and therefore made the supposition that it was a place of worship (in Canaanite times) of a god found in Akkadian sources as Shelmi, Shulmanu, or Salamu. The correction of the reading of Knudtzon (who was uncertain of his reading) fits well with the chronological reconstruction of the period. In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century). It was only to be expected that there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of Solomon. Also, in el-Amarna letter No. 74, the king of Damascus, inciting his subordinate sheiks to attack the king of Jerusalem, commanded them to “assemble in the Temple of Šulmán.” [End of quote] Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of the idolatrous Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim with the extremely pious King Jehoshaphat of Judah needed the slight modification, as provided by Peter James, that Abdi-Hiba was actually King Jehoshaphat’s evil son, Jehoram - a modification that I fully supported in my article: King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History (3) King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Apart from that, though, the EA evidence completely favoured Velikovsky’s revision, as he himself hastened to point out (op. cit., ibid.): It was surprising to find in the el-Amarna letters written in the fourteenth century that the capital of the land was already known then as Jerusalem (Urusalim) and not, as the Bible claimed for the pre-Conquest period, Jebus or Salem. …. Now, in addition, it was found that the city had a temple of Šulmán in it and that the structure was of such importance that its name had been used occasionally for denoting the city itself. (Considering the eminence of the edifice, “the house which king Solomon built for the Lord” …. this was only natural.) Yet after the conquest by the Israelites under Joshua ben-Nun, the Temple of Šulmán was not heard of. Lewy wrote: “Aside from proving the existence of a Šulmán temple in Jerusalem in the first part of the 14th century B.C., this statement of the ruler of the region leaves no doubt that the city was then known not only as Jerusalem, but also as Bet Šulmán.”—“It is significant that it is only this name [Jerusalem] that reappears after the end of the occupation of the city by the Jebusites, which the Šulmán temple, in all probability, did not survive.” [End of quote] The conventional system has the habit of throwing up such “surprising” historical anomalies! Dr. Velikovsky continues here: The late Professor W. F. Albright advised me that Lewy’s interpretation cannot be accepted because Šulmán has no sign of divinity accompanying it, as would be proper if it were the name of a god. But this only strengthens my interpretation that the temple of Šulmán means Temple of Solomon. In the Hebrew Bible the king’s name has no terminal “n”. But in the Septuagint — the oldest translation of the Old Testament — the king’s name is written with a terminal “n”; the Septuagint dates from the third century before the present era. Thus it antedates the extant texts of the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls not excluded. Solomon built his Temple in the tenth century. In a letter written from Jerusalem in the next (ninth) century, Solomon’s Temple stood a good chance of being mentioned; and so it was. [End of quote] P. Friedman, writing for a British revisionist journal, would later insist upon another necessary modification of the Velikovskian thesis. The description, “Temple of Solomon”, he explained (in “The Temple in Jerusalem?” SIS Review III:1 (Summer 1978), pp.7-8), is in fact a modern English rendition which is never actually found in the Hebrew as used in the Old Testament. There, King Solomon’s Temple is constantly referred to as the “House of Yahweh” or, simply, the “House of the Lord”. Friedman also drew attention to the fact that, in Assyrian records, the Kingdom of Israel is called the “House of Omri” in deference to Omri’s dynasty. He therefore suggested that Bet Shulman should, in like manner, be understood to refer to the Kingdom of Judah in deference to King Solomon’s dynasty (p. 8): “‘House of Solomon’ meant not merely the capital [i.e., Jerusalem], but the whole kingdom of Judah, approaching even more closely the use of ‘House of Omri’ for the kingdom of Israel”. Another possible interpretation of the phrase Bet Shulman is, as S. Dyen would later argue, that it should be understood literally as “the House”, that is the Palace, of King Solomon (“The House of Solomon”, KRONOS VIII:2 (Winter 1983), p. 88). The apparent reference back in time to his great (x 3) grandfather, King Solomon, by Abdi-hiba/Jehoram of Urusalim/Jerusalem – [e.g., Matthew 1:7-8: Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram …], serves to vindicate the Old Testament against the reckless biblical minimizing of the likes of Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein. He, as I have previously noted: …. is quoted as saying in … a … National Geographic article, “Kings of Controversy” by Robert Draper (David and Solomon, December 2010, p. 85): “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” What Finkelstein ought to be “sorry” for, however, is not the wise King Solomon – who continues to exist as a real historical and archaeological entity, despite the confused utterances of the current crop of Israeli archaeologists – but for Finkelstein’s own folly in clinging to a hopelessly out-dated and bankrupt archaeological system that has caused him to point every time to the wrong stratigraphical level for Israel’s Old Testament history (e.g. Exodus/Conquest; David and Solomon; Queen of Sheba). …. The effects of this biblical minimalising have been so complete that an Egyptian writer, Doaa El Shereef, can now write an extensive article based upon Israeli mass archaeological error: Israeli Archaeologists Admit that: There is No Temple of Solomon (3) Israeli Archaeologists Admit that: There is No Temple of Solomon | Doaa El Shereef - Academia.edu in which she effectively erases each and every major phase of Old Testament history.

Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello

by Damien F. Mackey “In the late 4th century BC a Greco-Babylonian high-priest exhumed the remains of the temple of Ningirsu and resurrected the cult of the statues of Gudea.” Dr. Sébastien Rey The Greco-Romans would greatly venerate and deify the ancient Egyptian sages, Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu, according to what we read in the article, “Imhotep”, in the New World Enyclopedia: …. The veneration of Imhotep grew to deification in the Late Period and the Greco-Roman era when his cult reached its zenith, and a number of shrines and temples were dedicated to the deified scholar. His main areas of worship appear to have been in the area of Saqqara, on the island of Philae, and at Thebes where he was also worshiped along with the deified 18th-dynasty sage Amenophis [Amenhotep] Son of Hapu at Deir el-Bahri and in the Ptolemaic temple at Deir al-Medina. An important inscription regarding him was placed in the temple of Ptah at Karnak in the reign of Tiberius. …. Given his association with medicine and healing, it is understandable that Imhotep came to be seen as the divine patron of the physician's arts. As a result of this patronage, he came to be affiliated with the Greek God Asclepius during the Hellenistic period. For this reason Sir William Osler describes Imhotep as the real Father of Medicine, "the first figure of a physician to stand out clearly from the mists of antiquity." …. Just as in the cult of Asclepius, temples of Imhotep came to be pilgrimage sites, where the afflicted would make votive offerings in hopes of receiving a divine cure. …. The tenor of these cultic beliefs is well-represented by a surviving hymn (which can be dated to the reign of Tiberius, 14–37 C.E.): Hail to you, kind-[hearted] god, Imhotep son of Ptah! Come to your house, your temple in Thebes, May its people see you with joy! Receive what is presented there, Inhale the incense, Refresh your body with libation! ... Men applaud you, Women worship you, One and all exalt your kindness! For you heal them, You revive them, You renew your father's creation. …. [End of quotes] And I suggest that the very same sort of thing was done in the case of Gudea of Girsu and Lagash, an ancient sage resurrected by the Greco-Romans. Where were Girsu and Lagash/Lakish? The places with which the famous Gudea was associated are primarily Girsu and Lagash (or Lakish), thought to have been closely connected Sumerian sites. The trouble is, Girsu and Lagash (Lagaš) will disappear off the Sumerian map. Seth Richardson refers to them as ‘falling off the political map’. Thus I wrote on this: Amazingly - though not really surprisingly under the circumstances - Lagash and Girsu seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’, according to Seth Richardson …. : Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson - Academia.edu The Ur III state came to its end through a series of passive defections of individual provinces over the course of about twenty years, rather than by any single catastrophic event. This pattern of defections is nowhere better reflected than in the gradual progression of provinces abandoning the use of Ibbi-Sîn’s year names over his years 2–8. Among the cities that fell away from the control of Ur in those years were Girsu and Lagaš, where Ur III year names are not attested after Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth year. …. Like Puzriš-Dagān and Umma (but unlike Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur), these cities seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia following their departure from Ur’s control, never again the seat of significant institutional life to judge by the low number of texts and inscriptions coming from the sites. At the same time, it is difficult to assert from evidence that any hardship or conflict either precipitated or resulted from Lagaš-Girsu’s decamping from Ur’s authority; no especial difficulty marks the event. …. [End of quote] The reason for why Girsu and Lagash (and other places) fall of the Mesopotamian map is because they should never have been on that particular map in the first place. Lagash (Lakish) and Eshnunna (Ashnunna) were Lachish in Judah, as I have written, in e.g.: As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash (6) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This is a long way from the land of Sumer. Gudea, the renowned and pious temple builder of Girsu and Lagash, was none other than King Solomon himself: Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu (6) Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Gudea (King Solomon) was also Senenmut (King Solomon in Egypt), sharing similar diorite statues: So, in the case of those who had tried to dissuade Dr. Sébastien Rey regarding his Girsu project at the site of Tello, 'Oh no you're making it up you're wasting your time you're wasting British museum UK government funding …', as quoted by Chloe Louise at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11765351/Girsu-Project-archaeologist-accused-making-finding-lost-palace.html I think that they may have had a point – though for reasons quite different from mine. Gudea and ancient Girsu do not belong at Tello. They, and the famed temple, have apparently been artificially resurrected there by later superstitious Greco-Romans of the same mentality as those who sought to deify Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu. According to Dr. Sébastien Rey’s interview, “Exploring Girsu”: (6) Exploring Girsu: Discoveries at the Home of a Sumerian Hero God | Sebastien Rey - Academia.edu …. In the Old Babylonian period the temple was decommissioned (de-sanctified) and the statues were ritually buried. But something quite remarkable happened at Girsu in the Hellenistic period, about 1500 years after the ritual closure of the temple and the burial of the statues. In the late 4th century BC a Greco-Babylonian high-priest exhumed the remains of the temple of Ningirsu and resurrected the cult of the statues of Gudea. In the chaos that followed the collapse of Seleucid rule in Babylonia, the shrine was burnt to the ground and the statues gathered in the large courtyard were defaced and beheaded. The heads were collected and taken away as booty, thus breaking the link between past and present. And this is precisely the archaeological context, or setting in which the French pioneers of the late 19th century found the hoard of headless sculptures portraying a Sumerian king in a Hellenistic shrine. …. [End of quote] “… breaking the link between past and present” is precisely what, I think, has happened here, not to mention the associated geographical peculiarities. See also my related article: Called Sumerian History, but isn’t (3) Called Sumerian History, but isn’t. | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Location of the Temple built by King Solomon

“Can you imagine the upheaval in political and religious thinking if the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is not the site of Solomon's [Temple]? And what if the stones of the Wailing Wall are not what tradition says?” Temple: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything about the Location of Solomon's Temple Paperback – April 30, 2014 by Robert Cornuke Dr (Author) ________________________________________ In a book that is being heralded as "an investigative masterpiece" with "astounding archaeological and prophetic implications," TEMPLE: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything About the Location of Solomon's Temple, by Robert Cornuke, is sending shockwaves through the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian worlds. Can you imagine the upheaval in political and religious thinking if the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is not the site of Solomon's [Temple]? And what if the stones of the Wailing Wall are not what tradition says? In this highly-researched, exciting book, the author proposes from current archaeological excavations and Scriptural corroboration that the true temple location is not where tradition teaches. This is must reading for anyone who wants to fit together the pieces of biblical records, current geo-politics, and prophecy. Says the author, "Let the adventure begin as we now take the Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other and dig up some long-lost buried bones of biblical history. Along the way we will walk unknown passageways, known only to the prophets of old, as we search for the true location of the lost temples …. https://www.amazon.com.au/Temple-Robert-Cornuke/dp/193977909X ________________________________________