Points taken, Sorry I write in haste as just on my way to work, but I stumbled across it all yesterday in relation to Q Anon and via Q Anon circles, the Mark Taylor prophecies, which are becoming very topical among American protestants. I think because it seems to tie in with one of Mark's prophecies, it will go viral in those circles. So Im studying it but I probably should not have posted it at this stage. It also brought to mind some things that Pedro Regis had said years ago about an archeological discovery. Can anyone help me out with finding those purported messages from Our Lady which touch on some kind of shocking discovery?
I think it is possible large parts of Noahs Ark are intact. Do you speak French by any chance Dolours? Worth a watch if you do.
A comment by a poster by the name of “Jordanes” over on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam blog post http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/09/did-jeremiah-hide-ark-on-mt-nebo.html on the topic of the Ark of the Covenant in response to the owner of that blog bears citing here because I think it touches all the right points on this topic of the Ark of the Covenant: Most fascinating, but I'm afraid you're mistaken on several points here. 1) The old Catholic Encyclopedia occasionally gets things wrong, and one can trace the faint influence of "Higher Criticism" in its treatment of the Old Testament at times. This is one of those instances. It is difficult to see how The Catholic Encyclopedia's claims, "[T]he letter from which the above-cited lines are supposed to have been copied cannot be regarded as possessing Divine authority; for, as a rule, a citation remains in the Bible what it was outside of the inspired writing; the impossibility of dating the original document makes it very difficult to pass a judgment on its historical reliability," can be reconciled with Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus 20-21 ("But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. . . . For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. . . . It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error."), Pius XII's Humani Generis 38 ("If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents."), and Vatican II's Dei Verbum11 ("the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."). In light of what the Church believes about the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, we must reject any attempt to suggest that some parts of the Scripture are not canonical or not infallible. If it is a part of a scriptural book, then it is canonical, and if it asserts anything, then the assertion is true. In this case, we have only to determine if the inspired author/compiler of II Maccabees intended to assert that Jeremiah concealed the Ark of the Covenant on Mt. Nebo. If he quoted that letter with the belief that what the letter says is true, then because he was the Holy Spirit's inspired instrument, what the letter says about the Ark is true. At the very least, the fact that the letter was included in Scripture proves that the letter is authentic and was written when it claims to have been written. Now the author's intention in quoting the letter was to provide historical background and evidence for his story, which tells how God brought about the cleansing of the Temple and explains the origin of the festival of Hanukkah. It seems unlikely that the author would have included the letter if he thought it contained counterfactual statements: the author is presumed to have believed what the letter says, which would mean he asserted the contents of the letter, which under the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy would mean the letter's story of Jeremiah's concealment of the Ark is true, vouched for by the Holy Spirit. 2) You says there is no constant, historical tradition of the Ark being hidden somewhere on Mt. Nebo. I can't speak to that, because I haven't made a comprehensive survey of the relevant literature of the past two millennia. To my knowledge, however, no ancient Christian author contradicted the II Maccabees account, that would counter one argument from silence with another. We should not expect the Church on Mt. Nebo to claim to be the location of the unknown cave where Jeremiah is said to have hidden the Ark, since the caves location is supposed to remain unknowable until the general conversion of the Jewish people to Catholicism at the end of time. 3) We should not expect any archaeological expeditions on Mt. Nebo to find the cave, since Jeremiah is said to have pronounced that it would remain hidden until the time when the scattered Israelites are regathered and God has mercy on them, something the Church Fathers say won't happen until the Last Days. Anyway you do an excellent job of showing that Crotser is a nutjob, so we should expect him to find anything at all...(cont.)
(Continued...) 4) You say that it's not likely that Jeremiah would have been permitted by them to simply take the Ark away. True, the unfaithful priests of Jerusalem would not likely have given him the Ark or allowed him to take it -- but after Nebuchadnezzar's vizier Nebuzaradan had sacked Jerusalem and the high priest Seraiah had been put to death, with the other leading priests dragged off in shackles to a Babylonian dungeon, those priests would not have been in any position to stop Jeremiah from taking the Ark. We know that Jeremiah was on reasonably good terms with Nebuzaradan, and we know from the Book of Baruch that Jeremiah's secretary Baruch managed to obtain some silver Temple vessels in Babylon, intending to take them back to the ragtag group of Jews still living in or near the desolate, ruined city of Jerusalem so they could resume sacrifices there. In that light, it's not hard to believe that the Babylonians could have given the Ark to Jeremiah before they set fire to the Temple. Again, in IV Kings' catalogue of items looted from the Temple, the Ark is not mentioned: unless the Ark had already left the Temple years before the time of the fall of Jerusalem, the absence of the Ark from that catalogue would suggest that somehow it had been removed from the Temple just before, during, or just after the sack of Jerusalem. 4) II Chron. 35:3 does not say that the Ark was gone by the reign of King Josiah. On the contrary, after cleansing and repairing the Temple and reconstituting the priestly worship, Josiah issued a decree to the Levites to return the Ark to the Temple. If the Ark was gone before Josiah's reign, its absence would have been noticed when the Temple renovation project began. If the Levites had not been carrying the Ark on their shoulders, Josiah would not have told them, "It shall no longer be a burden on you shoulders." So he issued his decree, and we are not told that the Levites failed to obey it: the usual meaning in such cases is that the King's edict had gone into effect and had been obeyed. Far from attesting that the Ark was gone by Josiah's reign, II Chron. 35:3 shows that the Ark was still in Jerusalem in his day. 5) Some "Christian Zionists" or evangelical Protestants, or oddball kook frauds like Crotser, suffer from fevered delusions of the imminent return of Christ, and they hope that the prophecy of II Macc. 2:7 will be fulfilled -- so Crotser tries to find the Ark on Mt. Nebo, thereby ushering in the Second Advent of Christ. But the truth or falsity of this biblical tradition cannot be established through well poisoning or guilty by association. There are a lot of kooks who believe things the Bible says: that doesn't mean what the Bible says is wrong. 7) You reiterate that "the Scriptural reference to the Ark being on Mt. Nebo is taken from a quotation and thus is not inerrant." I have already addressed that point above, but here is a further example. At the Areopagus, St. Paul quoted two pagan Greek poets, Epimenides of Knossos and Aratus of Soli (Acts 17:28). Does the fact that verse 28 is made up of two quotations of pagan poets establish that what they said is not inerrant, and therefore could be false? By no means: it is infallibly true that in God we live and move and have our being, and we too are His offspring. As Leo XIII said, it is forbidden to limit inerrancy only to certain passages of Scripture: inerrancy applies to all of Scripture, even the quotations. All things taken together, I say the scenario that must hold pride of place is that recounted in II Macc. 2: Jeremiah concealed the Ark somewhere on Mt. Nebo, and the location of that cave will remain unknown until Christ comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead. Anyone trying to find that cave is wasting his time. And anyway, as Jeremiah prophesied elsewhere, the time will come when the Ark of the Covenant will no longer be of important to God's People: that time came 2,000 years ago, at the Annunciation, when the Power of God, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, overshadowed the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant which has been assumed into heaven. As I'm sure you agree, that is the Ark we should really be focusing on.
Thanks, Richard67. Thank you very much. I went to the link you posted, http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/09/did-jeremiah-hide-ark-on-mt-nebo.html and found the following, which gives me reason to believe that it is possible to consider various locations other than Mt Nebo for the Ark, yet still be in good standing with the Catholic Church; "But on a more serious note, what about this verse from Maccabees? Since this is from Sacred Scripture, does this not prove irrefutably that the Ark is on the summit of Pisgah in Mount Nebo? As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out, the answer is no, for a very simple reason relating to Scriptural infallibility. Regarding the passage from Maccabees cited above, the Encyclopedia notes that: "[T]he letter from which the above-cited lines are supposed to have been copied cannot be regarded as possessing Divine authority; for, as a rule, a citation remains in the Bible what it was outside of the inspired writing; the impossibility of dating the original document makes it very difficult to pass a judgment on its historical reliability." If we re-read Maccabees carefully, we see that indeed, the account is said to be transcribed from a letter, and letters and outside writings which are quoted in the Bible do not therefore gain canonicity, but retain their original authority. Therefore, the fact that this citation appears in 2 Maccabees does not give it any infallible authority, though, as the Encyclopedia says, neither ought it to be discarded automatically." and "6) As we have seen, the Scriptural reference to the Ark being on Mt. Nebo is taken from a quotation and thus is not inerrant."
So, you're disregarding this: "In light of what the Church believes about the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, we must reject any attempt to suggest that some parts of the Scripture are not canonical or not infallible. If it is a part of a scriptural book, then it is canonical, and if it asserts anything, then the assertion is true. In this case, we have only to determine if the inspired author/compiler of II Maccabees intended to assert that Jeremiah concealed the Ark of the Covenant on Mt. Nebo. If he quoted that letter with the belief that what the letter says is true, then because he was the Holy Spirit's inspired instrument, what the letter says about the Ark is true. At the very least, the fact that the letter was included in Scripture proves that the letter is authentic and was written when it claims to have been written. Now the author's intention in quoting the letter was to provide historical background and evidence for his story, which tellshow God brought about the cleansing of the Temple and explains the origin of the festival of Hanukkah. It seems unlikely that the author would have included the letter if he thought it contained counterfactual statements: the author is presumed to have believed what the letter says, which would mean he asserted the contents of the letter, which under the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy would mean the letter's story of Jeremiah's concealment of the Ark is true, vouched for by the Holy Spirit." Do you think that the very strict orthodox Jews would let anyone keep the Ark hidden away, especially if the people who had it were secular or reformed Jews?
Orthodox Jews are not part of the military. If the Israeli state had the Arc...it would be controlled by Military. Just a thought.
I struggle with English, Mac, and not even my attempt at charades got me any results when asking directions in Paris. It is possible that parts of Noah's Ark are intact, but how many parts and where? There could be parts of it, if they exist, all over that region. In one video, there was something about nails being found in the wood with an explanation that even though the ark was built pre-iron age, that doesn't mean that Noah couldn't have used nails. That's the reason I asked about whether pieces could have been recycled. I'm imagining what the terrain would have been like after the floodwaters receded. Noah and his family surely would have had to stay on the ark until the ground dried out enough for them and the animals to travel overland. Then they would have had to build some kind of homes or shelters for themselves and the more domesticated of the animals. The only dry wood available to them would have been the wood used to build the ark, so wouldn't they have recycled it, taking it who knows how far from where the Ark landed? And isn't it possible that future generations of people living in that area would have used and re-used the wood as they waited for trees and other vegetation to grow after the flood? Also, looking at floods on the TV news, we see lots of stuff swept along by the flood water. Wouldn't there have been all sorts of stuff floating and left behind by the receding water? I'm not saying that the man didn't find pieces of the ark, but I'm not convinced he found as much as he claimed he did. Surely, if he had, the Turkish Government would have either preserved it or moved and reconstructed it in some kind of museum. All we saw of actual wood in those videos were not so very large pieces - nothing like the size of the entire bottom of such a large vessel. Maybe there's something in the videos that I missed?
And you think the Orthodox Jews wouldn't be holding protest demonstrations for the military to release the Ark into their care? I thought they changed the law which exempted the Orthodox from military service? Maybe it was just a proposal and not carried through?
As always, I am no expert on this or any subject, and have more questions than answers myself. I think the Ark was afloat for nearly a year, thus the Dove returned with greenery. Many stories of the Ark spotted on Ararat in the last century are around 13000 feet. One of my favourite stories is of the Russians finding the Ark in 1916. The Czar sent soldiers to survey and take photos. The Revolution in 1917 put an end to the evidence and we only had the story. I have just found this photo on google which backs the story. Is it real? I have no idea.
I had forgotten about the dove returning with a twig. Maybe that suggests that parts of Ararat weren't completely covered in water? Or maybe everwhere wasn't covered in water for a full year? Would trees survive a full year under water? I suppose that some species could. Anyway, with God all things are possible. The picture in your post is too small for me to see it properly. The link opens in another screen which gives me no option to enlarge it. Unlike the Ark of the Covenant, at least there's no dispute that Noah landed on Ararat. Finding some traces of the ark he built is more believable than the story about the Ark of the Covenant. I don't believe that the Israeli government would get away with hiding the real ark for years. Reading a few comments on different website, it appears that Mr. Wyatt wasn't sufficiently qualified to get a permit from Israeli Government. Plenty of comments from people debunking his claims. This one from the website linked by Richard makes most sense to me: "You are referring to the expedition of Ron Wyatt? Wyatt is completely unreliable as an archaeologist - and his story about the angel forbidding him to take pictures of the ark is bunk. Wyatt is a crack-pot archaeologist and he brought back no credible evidence that he had found the ark other than his word and his peculiar (Seventh Day Adventist) interpretation of the Scriptures."Both the Garden Tomb and Ark of the Covenant claims sound like a load of baloney. I'm amazed that Catholics would be so willing to believe the claims of an unqualified 7th Day Adventist rather than the conclusions of centuries of Christian scholarship and tradition. Those recently founded Protestant churches will just have to accept that they were too late on the scene to have custody of the most holy sites in Christianity and none of their new "discoveries" will change that.
My own theory. 1) The Jews will not find the Ark of the the Covenant because they removed the book of of Maccabees from there canon of sacred scripture around 200 AD and the Protestants cannot find it because they agreed with that Old TestamentJewish canon. The Catholics however where preserved in the knowledge of God as they derived there O.T. canon from the Septuagint. This was the O.T. script that Jesus would have read from and quoted from. The Ark contained the 10 commandments, the staff of Aaron and Manna from heaven. Is is comforting to know that God returned the Ark to the resting place of Moses who originally received the 10 Commandments. The Ark is not finished in history as it will be found again at Gods appointed time. This is my private assertion. It is fitting that the great stone that covered Jesus's tomb is now located on Mount Nebo itself. This logical...because the great stone was moved in the Gospel speaking of Jesus's resurrection. This great stone marks the place of the Ark of the Covenant on Mt. Nebo. When this stone is "rolled back"...underneath is the Ark. When it is rolled back it symbolically mimics the resurrection of Jesus...the resurrection of the Ark of God. There is also other rich connotations which I leave to your own imagination. This is a video made by Protestants...yet they do not comprehend its total significance because they do not recognize the book of Maccabees as divinely inspired though they quote from it and do not recognize Catholic authority. Is this my imagination or could there be something to it?
Haven't watched the video yet but must agree with all you say about what the Protestants are missing by not accepting 2 Maccabees as divinely inspired. They miss out on praying for their dead. And they miss out on the intercession of the Saints and the Blessed Mother. Something else that jumps out at me is how so many Protestants (and lately a lot of Catholics) don't understand the reason why the best of the best goes into our churches, especially the sanctuaries and sacred vessels of the altar. It's because we have Jesus present in our tabernacles and God deserves the best. Some Protestant denominations like the Methodists seem to pride themselves on having plain, nondescript meeting houses. That's understandable because the best they can hope for is a spiritual presence of God whereas we have the actual presence of Jesus in our tabernacles under the appearance of bread. That description of the Ark of the Covenant is an indication from God that if nothing but the best should go into the ark containing the word of God on tablets of stone, nothing but the best should go into the tabernacle or any vessel touching the Word made flesh - His only begotten Son.
I hate to admit this but before my conversion Dolours I spent a great many years misunderstanding the opulence of the Church and especially the Cathedrals and wealth of Rome. I was so incredibly ignorant even though I had read the Bible and knew the story of Cain and Abel well. In fact, I thought it to be completely over the top and I often considered it as an example of materialism. I had no idea because I simply could not comprehend the presence of Christ in the Church in the Eucharist. That Jesus is residing in the Tabernacle in the Sanctuary. Truly residing there. I think it is this reason that so many Catholics these days can not understand why the best we have is offered up to God. Because a great many who identify themselves as Catholics either never did or no longer believe in the Presence of Christ in the Tabernacle. The fear of God has left us. This is why they can vote for abortion and see divorce as reasonable and yet expect to receive communion and rarely go to confession. Let alone believe they have even committed any sin to be forgiven. IMO it is why so many of the Churches built today look like nothing more than a gymnasium or auditorium. I don't like saying this either but it is what I am reminded of every time I enter a modern Church. Personally I avoid them.
In those verses from 2 Maccabees, Jeremiah tells us that the Ark will not be found “until God gathers His people together again and shows His mercy. And then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that a place should be especially consecrated.” Somehow I doubt this is referencing the Second Coming, which would be the end of history. I get the impression that this event being described by Jeremiah is some intervention of God that occurs prior to the Second Coming.
I understand now, Lumena, and thank you for explaining. I should apologise, too, for the tone my post. I was frustrated hearing that lady say that nobody can enter heaven with unforgiven sins yet, because Protestants don't fully accept 2 Maccabees, her deceased friends and relatives are deprived of the benefits of prayers that she could be saying for them. As I see the decline in the faith here, I'm conscious that when I pass on there could be few, if any, prayers said for me after my funeral. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question about the message from Our Lady.
Do you think it could be connected somehow to the conversion of the Jews which will happen after the full complement of gentiles are brought into the Church but before the Second Coming? Incidentally, Richard, your posts about Israel are very interesting.
Yes, I think the discovery of the Ark will coincide with a large conversion of the Jews, although this particular event remains largely a mystery.
