Forum

Re: ... and Canaan became the father of Israel.

In March of 2006, Tim wrote (I have returned) where he said;

"After the death of Solomon, in the OT, the terms "Israel" or "the House of Israel" refer to northern, non-"jewish" groups. "Judah" and the "House of Judah" refer to the Palestinian population where Judaism has its roots, and whose characters populate the rest of the OT. Masonry's fetishism with Genesis, Kings, and Chronicles reflects this knowledge- these are the most genuinely historical books in the OT. (Oh yeah, and they tell what the temple/tabernacle really was, but that's another post altogether)"

While the first part of Tim's paragraph may touch upon Charle's up-coming postings, it is the last part, found in parenthesis, that I wish to discuss, and wonder if Tim ever posted an answer!

I have probably posted on this site my agreement with another site found on the Web, disucssing Salt! They (he), and I agree with them (him?), state that the Temple was most likely merely a great "abattoir", or if you prefer a slaughter-house!

Or to more precisely identify it with today's world a Kosher or Kasher or Kasrut "slaughter-house", wereby the local population would bring their so called goats, lambs, etc., to be ritually slaughtered and preserved for future use via drying / salting, etc.

Of course there was a fee charged for this service which would provide the producer of the lambs, etc., with safe meat that could be kept for long periods of time, even during hard times like when the area was being attacked, etc., and fresh meat was unavailable, and that fee exists today in religious circumstances, where it is called the tithe' or tenth part! This of course helps to explain the necessity of a lot of water at the temple location, and the discovery of great cisterns under the temple mount, as well as reports of water delivered there via aquaducts, give us even more reliance upon this explanation which seems to be mentioned in passing when the "great sea of Solomon" is mentioned.

The site I mention, is located at;

http://www.salt.org.il/rel1.html

Whereby you can read this, among other things;

"Herod's monopoly of the salt supply from the Dead Sea salt mountain, carefully guarded and protected en route to Jerusalem by fortifications such as Masada, finally provided the Temple in Jerusalem with a highly profitable and exclusive source of income.

Salting meat from a domesticated animal was only possible in the temple and an owner or family wishing to preserve the meat for the coming months was obliged to take the animal to the temple.

The Temple for all intents and purposes, was a sophisticated 'abattoir' providing an hygienic and very well organised service to the community for the purpose of producing 'kosher' meat. The leather, hides, and allied bye-products were direct unlaundered income and were almost certainly the reason for the "overturning of the money changers tables" .

Domesticated animals taken to the temple were handled with the utmost care and respect by the priests on behalf of their owners and with the ritual and piety that vindicated any possible misunderstanding as to the purpose of the 'sacrifice'

It is clear that the ceremony and ritual accompanying this community service, was the result , and not the cause of it, and when examining other temples so central to other civilisations, it becomes clear that this was the case with almost all other cults and religions.

Whilst this highly commendable service was so necessary to any civilised and developing population, the key element of exclusive salt supplies also established it as a very effective monopoly with considerable governing power particularly at the local community level.

The salt monopolies were to be the instrument of power until the Industrial Revolution when the invention of modern burning fuels allowed the efficient mass production of salt by vacuum evaporation and the elimination of religious and controlled coercion."

Again the source for the above is; http://www.salt.org.il/rel1.html

I just wonder what Tim's explanation might be and, of course, that of Charles?

Regards,

Ron

Responses To This Message

An End to the (March) Madness