Part of Temple Mount Wall 'Collapsing': Apocalypse, Anyone?

[Andy Mancini]

I'll say this right now: I'm sorry if this thread about religion offends anyone. There have been other "religious" threads on this board, and I don't think this one is any worse than any of those.

According to the BBC Online... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2219337.stm)


Part of Temple Mount wall 'collapsing'


Islamic trustees say the wall is in good condition

Part of the wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is in danger of falling down, say Israeli officials in Jerusalem.
Mayor Ehud Olmert is calling on the Israeli Government to take action to repair the wall, on the southern section of a raised compound known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif.

His views are backed by a group of Israeli archaeologists.

But the Muslim authorities who run the have rejected intervention.

The bulge, which is about 10 metres wide, has been noticeable in the wall for several years.

Mr Olmert told Israel Radio: "There are serious grounds for the apprehension that it could collapse.

"In my view, we have reached the moment of truth."

Shuka Dorfman, head of the Israeli Antiquities Committee, told The Jerusalem Post that the Waqf, the Muslim religious trust responsible for the site, had turned down requests by Israeli officials to carry out tests and repairs if necessary.

"The necessary co-operation needed with the Waqf is non-existent," he said.


Waqf director Adnan al-Husayni said Waqf would not agree to intervention by Israel - or any other party - on the compound.

He said that Waqf had been monitoring the situation and began repairing the wall several months ago, but that Israel was trying to cause difficulties over the wall, which is part of the most sensitive religious complex in the world.

The threatened wall ajoins the Western Wall or Wailing Wall - so called because it was there that Jews bewailed the loss of their Temple above it.

That area, now the site of the al-Aqsa mosque, is sacred to Jews and to Muslims.

Political dispute

It was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit there as Israeli opposition leader in September 2000 that marked the start of the latest wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence.


There have been repeated disputes over stewardship of the mosque compound

In effect, the dispute is less about structural integrity of the wall, and more about politics and about ownership of perhaps the most disputed site in the Middle East.

During the war in 1967, Israel took control of Arab lands including the old city of Jerusalem.

But the government decided to leave the day-to-day custody of the mosque compound in the hands of Muslim religious authorities.

Since then, there have been repeated disputes between the two sides over stewardship of the site.

But during failed peace talks two years ago, neither side could agree on sovereignty of the compound.


Now, why does this make a difference? Well, if you're a Christian that believes in the "Revelations" part of the Bible, this is one of the warning signs that the Rapture is coming. And the Rapture is the sign that the world is about to end.

So, where do you guys stand? Do you think that the end is really near and the Anti-Christ (which is supposedly everyone from Prince Charles to Austria's Earl of Hattsburg to Rush Limbaugh) will be showing his face soon, or do you think it's just an old wall showing it's age? I'm going to hold my comments until some people respond.

[Patrick Bateman]

I try not to think about stuff like that. It's really depressing. If something happens, it happens. I'm not going to spend every day of my life worrying that something might happen.

[jeffrey 228]

And I my self may insult others and that it is not very good and stuff to disterb other peoples religions and stuff.

[Barb Gordon]

I'm a devout Catholic, but that article just makes me think they outta repair the wall before it collapses. I know it has historical and religious meaning, but I just see it as a very old structure that needs a repair job.

~Barb

[Rafeal v1.0]

Now, why does this make a difference? Well, if you're a Christian that believes in the "Revelations" part of the Bible, this is one of the warning signs that the Rapture is coming. And the Rapture is the sign that the world is about to end.

not that im doubting you or anything, but i've never heard about this and i find it interesting, I would like to read where it says that in the bible so can you give me the verse where it says this plzz?

[Jedigreedo]

Just fix the wall. Like that's it's a hazard to anyone near it, you know it's not gonna look right when someone puts up a sign "Pray at your own risk."

[Joe Wagner]

It was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit there as Israeli opposition leader in September 2000 that marked the start of the latest wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

In truth - this was never and has never been the cause of the wave of Palestinian violence. Reports have indicated that the current waves of attacks were in place long before he visited the temple and were even talked about after Arafat rejected a chance for peace with Israel under the Clinton lead talks.

Recently there seems to have been a lot of signs that tend to indicate that we may in fact be in the end times of the Bible. However, from what I can remember reading the anti-Christ will not be revealed for quite some time after the end times has already begun. While we can attempt to predict the end times, we won't truly know until after the anti-Christ reveals himself to the world.

-Joe!

[Krayenhoff]

If you believe in Revelations and that the end of the world via divine activity is possible, then you are not at all convinced that we are at the end times.

Times are not especially dark anywhere.

The Anti-Christ is in no position to take power in "Rome."

Hell, we can't even begin to speculate until John Paul II is dead. He's supposed to be the last "real" Pope before the Anti-Pope takes power, so hold your horses.

This end of the world stuff is nonsense, anyway. Nostradamus, Cayce, et al have been proven to be frauds, and Revelations is way too vague to even be considered.

[Lucky Bob]

I remember nothing in Revelation about a wall collapsing....

However, I do think we're being set up for the Anti-Christ, and he might be living today.

[Beat]

I don't think the raputre will happen during our lifetimes.

[JohnCrichton]

Isn't the Anti-Christ suppose to be from across the seas and the son of some leader who will lead armies in to war?

Across the seas would be us and ol' George W is the son of a president and running gung-ho in to war despite the cries of the rest of the world.

Who knows...

I think everyone's being stricken with Millenium Fever.

[Krayenhoff]

Isn't the Anti-Christ suppose to be from across the seas and the son of some leader who will lead armies in to war?

Well why don't you read Revelations and find out?

Across the seas would be us and ol' George W is the son of a president and running gung-ho in to war despite the cries of the rest of the world.

Despite what? Are you ignoring how Europe is slowly coming around to our point of view? Do you understand why France and Russia are stalling this so that they can continue to make money for themselves? Do you know anything about this situation at all?

And besides, if you want to be literal about it, the Anti-Christ will be a man by the name of Peter who will rule in a city that has seven hills. Geography experts know that that city is commonly referred to as Rome. So that means that Italy will lead the world to destruction.

More proof as to why you should not take everything in the Bible literally, and why should you take none of Revelations literally at all.

I think everyone's being stricken with Millenium Fever.

I don't. That fad passed last year.

[JohnCrichton]

My you sound familiar.....

Anyway, I was going by what I saw in that movie, "The Omen." Give yourself a hearty pat on the back for being well-read.

[Beat]

But JC, "Omen" sucked. It wasn't even scary.

[Krayenhoff]

Anyway, I was going by what I saw in that movie, "The Omen." Give yourself a hearty pat on the back for being well-read.

The Omen? Why are you basing your argument on a fictional MOVIE? If you want to learn about the Apocalypse, you do not turn to the movies. It's a book called Revelations. I know you like to read, so it shouldn't be a problem for you. Go read it, then come back.

[JohnCrichton]

It's "JC". ;)

And I don't know what movie you're talking about. That movie might not have scared me like The Ring, but that was a film classic.

And well, while we're making up stuff and drawing conclusions for this clue and that... pulling from movies, bibles and prophecies... maybe the seven hills was in reference to Rome, or maybe a Rome.

The capital of their current world and the capital of this current world and this current world Rome might be... Washington D.C.!

:eek:

Or something...

[JohnCrichton]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
The Omen? Why are you basing your argument on a fictional MOVIE? If you want to learn about the Apocalypse, you do not turn to the movies. It's a book called Revelations. I know you like to read, so it shouldn't be a problem for you. Go read it, then come back.

Hm.... actually that wouldn't be a bad idea. Read a little out of the very book I was raised on.

Still, sorry, I don't think I'm taking this subject as seriously as the rest of you. So I guess I'll be content basing my assumptions on a fictional MOVIE instead of say a (arguably)fictional BOOK.

So, I'll just go by The Omen.

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton
It's "JC". ;)

And I don't know what movie you're talking about. That movie might not have scared me like The Ring, but that was a film classic.

And well, while we're making up stuff and drawing conclusions for this clue and that... pulling from movies, bibles and prophecies... maybe the seven hills was in reference to Rome, or maybe a Rome.

The capital of their current world and the capital of this current world and this current world Rome might be... Washington D.C.!

:eek:

Or something...

Or maybe we should all just ignore you, then.

[JohnCrichton]

I wouldn't be at all offended if just you did, Sunshine. :)

[Feslmogh]

Hey, first thing first...
God has to call his people home first-Remeber "Left Behind"?
In My opinon, the reason the wall is cumberling (sic) is because it never been kept up all these years of war and weather.

[The Old Maid]

Originally posted by dj_gir

Now why does this make a difference? Well, if you're a Christian that believes in the "Revelations" part of the Bible, this is one of the warning signs that the Rapture is coming. And the Rapture is the sign that the world is about to end.

Originally posted by Rafeal v1.0

not that im doubting you or anything, but i've never heard about this and i find it interesting, I would like to read where it says that in the bible so can you give me the verse where it says this plzz?

Which part do you mean? The wall, the Temple, the Rapture, or the Tribulation? Oh well, here goes.

The Wall : To my knowledge there is no specific verse about a falling wall which sets a chain of events in motion leading to the end of the world. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

The Temple : Jewish and Christian traditions hold that the world cannot end until the Third Temple is built and in use. At present, that piece of land (the Temple Mount) has the Dome of the Rock on it and a few other buildings. If you've seen photos of Jerusalem, the dome is bright golden.

Muslim belief states that Muhammad ascended into the afterlife from a specific place in Jerusalem. He then returned to earth and continued his work. Muslims built a shrine over the specific place. This is the Dome of the Rock, on the Temple Mount. It is the third holiest site in Islam.

The Temple Mount is the first holiest place to Jews. Somewhere up there on Temple Mount is the Holy of Holies, the room where the Ark and the Ten Commandments it contained were kept. It is so holy that the only person allowed to enter it was the High Priest, and then only on the holiest day of the year. Given a chance to build the Third Temple, the Jews would want to rebuild it on the "footprint" of the previous Temples. That can't happen if other buildings are already there. And so there may be Muslim pilgrims and/or insensitive Gentile tourists stepping on the Holy of Holies. This is a Very Big Deal.

If the support wall on Temple Mount falls down, could the buildings on Temple Mount be damaged or destroyed? If they are, who rebuilds on that site? The Muslims won't be happy if the Third Temple gets rebuilt on it, and the Jews won't be happy if the Dome and mosque compound get rebuilt on it.

So if the tradition/belief that the Temple will be rebuilt is indeed prophecy, then any existing buildings would have to go bye-bye first. People have speculated whether that would happen by natural disaster (e.g. earthquake, storm, etc.) or by manmade causes. If the wall falls down, that'd qualify as both.

The Great Tribulation : Commonly understood to be 7 years long, with the last 3 1/2 years being especially gruesome. This comes from Daniel 12 and Revelation 6 and onward. During that time the sun will darken and the moon turn to blood (Joel 2:31 and Rev. 6:12.)

The Rapture : This topic is extremely delicate.

The verses cited are usually Luke 17:34-37 and I Thessalonians 4:16-17.

Those who believe that the righteous will be raptured to the afterlife before the Tribulation are called dispensationalists. (The Left Behind books are dispensationalist.) This belief was first attributed to the English evangelist John Nelson Darby in 1860. It is most popular in North America. In fact, over ninety percent of dispensationalists live there.

The majority of Christians, who believe that they must endure the Tribulation and will be raptured afterwards (in the moment that Jesus returns to earth through the clouds, and will follow his procession back to earth to stay by His side), are nondispensationalists. They cite the same verses but interpret them very differently. They say these verses refer to two different events.

I just double-checked these verses in a Parallels Bible (four translations side-by-side). The King James, New International, and Revised Standard translate Luke 17:37 differently from The Living Bible (a paraphrased version). TLB translates it as if TLB were an Amplified Bible (a translation that weaves dictionary definitions or synonymns into the text, just as I'm doing in this sentence). This verse in the TLB sounds nondispensationalist. The other three translate it neutrally, according to the original. The verse is "Where?" He replied, "To the place where the vultures gather." In TLB the verse is, "Where will they be taken?" He replied, "To the place where the vultures gather!"

Dispensationalists have interpreted Luke 17:37 to mean that those who are left behind will find themselves in the place where the vultures gather. Nondispensationalists say that the disciples were asking where those who would be taken would find themselves -- because the location of those left behind is already known (still at work, still at home).

Without going into detail, if you are interested in that topic there is a good nondispensationalist article (two pages) in the September 25th (2002) issue of The Christian Century.

I have both dispensationalists and nondispensationalists in my family. The relationship between them could be described as tense.

As for the end of the world, well, prophecy is often understood only after the fact. Besides we are none of us promised tomorrow. You don't know you're going to live long enough to see tomorrow's troubles, so you should live right today. God has promised to be with us no matter what happens.

"Tryin' to live righteous,
It's my life and that's why
I go light on my vices."
--Will Smith, Born to reign

[Rafeal v1.0]

well old maid, you have sucessfully left me in awe, knowing so much of the bible must of took you a long time, either that or you are very serious about studying the word.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton
Isn't the Anti-Christ suppose to be from across the seas and the son of some leader who will lead armies in to war?

Across the seas would be us and ol' George W is the son of a president and running gung-ho in to war despite the cries of the rest of the world.

Who knows...

I think everyone's being stricken with Millenium Fever.

Sorry but I strongly disagree - here is the passage which you are speaking about:

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed and all the world wondered after the beast. " Revelation 13:1-3.

Now you may question what all this means - allow me to put this passage into context.

Who is this lion?

"The king of Babylon hath heard the report of them, and his hands waxed feeble: anguish took hold of him, and pangs as of a woman in travail. Behold, he shall come up like a lion from the swelling of Jordan unto the habitation of the strong." Jeremiah 50:43,44.

Thus the Babylonian Empire arose in the year 606 B.C. But what of the wings? In the British Museum you will find a great stone taken from the ancient city of Babylon-which portrays a lion with wings! This was actually the symbol of the old city of Babylon.

The phrase "the man's heart" denotes a coming time and experience of weakness when Babylon would be overcome and destroyed, thus opening the way for a second world kingdom.

"and behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it. and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh." Daniel 7.5.

The bear is God's caricature of the next world power. Persia conquered the world in the year 538 B.C. You observed the bear, that it was devouring three ribs in its mouth. Old Babylon was composed of exactly three provinces, namely, Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt. The conquering power of Persia destroyed all three. But what is so amazing is that God gives such details. He says the bear raised himself on one side. When Medo-Persia became strong, the Persians overthrew the Medes. Let us continue.

"After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl, the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. Daniel 7.6.

Everyone knows that the next universal power in world history was that of Greece, which developed in the year 331 B.C. This beast had four wings to indicate that it would swiftly conquer the world.

Alexander the Great conquered the world in only twelve years, without the aid of anything like our modern methods of warfare or travel. This was considered a miracle in that day.

Now look closely. This beast had four heads. God never leaves any reason for doubt. History reveals that Alexander died at the early age of 33. He conquered the world but could not conquer his own temper. He died of fatigue and disease, without leaving any posterity to carry on the kingdom. So his realm was divided among the four generals-Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, Ptolemy-who continued to rule the world under the fourth beast. God said another world power would soon arise.

"After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. Daniel 7:7.

This fourth beast represents old pagan Rome which began its reign in the year 168 B.C. It was a dreadful power-as God described it-having great iron teeth. The historian Edward Gibbon, in writing of its history, describes the Roman enemies as broken by the iron monarchy of Rome.

We have now come in history to the time of the cross. Pagan Rome was ruling the world when Jesus was born, and it was under pagan rule that He was so cruelly crucified in A.D. 31. At this time world affairs had reached their lowest ebb, and men were about to be swallowed up in pagan philosophy. They were dying without a hope for the future, but Jesus came to deliver men and women and to show them the way of life.

Now the Scripture describes this beast as having ten horns. They represent the ten kingdoms that pagan Rome was divided into in the year A.D. 476.

For even more information about the beginning of the Anti-Christ, as described in Revelations, please click here (http://www.biblerevelations.org/antichrist/theantichrist.htm).

-Joe!