Litnet

Beste Wouter,

'n Fout wat sommer dadelik opduik is die beskrywing van Jesus as 'n skrynwerker. Hout was 'n baie skaars artikel.Jesus was eerder 'n klipbewerker wat waarskynlik saam met ander op bouprojekte in die omgewing gewerk het.

Mondelinge oorvertelling was die bron van inligting. In sommige dorpe was daar soms slegs een persoon wat kon lees of skryf. Was mense dan nie veeltalig nie. Ja ongetwyfeld, maar die feit dat jy meer as een taal kan praat beteken nie dat jy dit kan lees of skryf.

Ons neem vandag aan dat as jy bv. Engels kan praat moet jy dit ook kan lees en skryf., wat 'n foutiewe aanname is.

Nog 'n foutiewe aanname is dat Jesus 'n baie belangrike persoon moes gewees het in die Joodse samelewing.
Glad nie. Daar was baie ander mense wat baie belangrike posisies in die samelewing beklee het, veral die godsdiensleiers.

Dit is duidelik dat hul nie daarmee ingenome was dat in ons taal 'n ambagsman 'n alternatiewe skrifuitleg gee nie, net soos vandag se hoogs geleerde teoloë nie daarvan sal hou, as 'n ambagsman vandag in die gemeente sal opstaan en hul skrifuitleg as verkeerd sal bewys nie.

Sou so persoon dan nog daarop aanspraak maak dat Hy die Seun van God is, was genoeg om sy eie doodsvonnis te teken.

'n Mens hoef dus nie alwetend te wees nie om sekere gebeurtenisse  neer te skryf of om daar teenwoordig te wees nie. Jesus het baie alleentyd met sy dissipels deurgebring en soos enige goeie leermeester sou Hy hulle wel deeglik ingelig en voorberei het, ook op dit en wat op sy volgelinge wag.

Jaco Fourie

Dit beteken nie dat daar vry toegang tot dit was nie. Daar is kontrakte aangegaan en Israel was nie hoog op die lys nie, daar was ander meer belangriker klante en as hul nie hul sin gekry het is dit met geweld gevat. Sien studiegeval hieronder.

Ek weet nie hoe elektronies gaan oordra nie aangesien dit talle verwysings bevat.

Cedars of Lebanon and Deforestation (CEDARS Case)             CASE NUMBER:        187         CASE MNEMONIC:      CEDARS         CASE NAME:          Cedars of Lebanon and Phoenicians  
I.    IDENTIFICATION
1.    THE ISSUE         Owing to the diminution of rainfall from north to south,       from west to east, and from highland to lowland, these       were exactly the directions in which the chief lumber       traffic moved [along the Mediterranean].  Exceptions       occurred mainly where choice woods from a limited area of       production gradually acquired wide use, as in the case of       ...the unsurpassed cedars of Lebanon.  [Semple, pp.267-       68]       

 The cedar trees of Lebanon were much heralded in the times of antiquity for their beauty, fragrance, commercial value, and utility in building.  Research derived from historical abstracts reveals the relationship between ancient Lebanese cedar trade for commercial and economic profit, and the denudation of the once beautifully forested lands of the Levant. 

This case study, therefore, has certain relevance as an ancient trade issue with apparent environmental consequences, as demonstrated by a minimally forested Lebanon today;  the significance of this research is hence justified.  To know the appearance of Mount Lebanon in ancient times, as well as how its vegetation changed to a great degree, "[I]s to come to grips with processes that offer unrivaled evidence of man's ability to transform nature." [Mikesell, p.1]

 2.    DESCRIPTION       In antiquity, there were a variety of different peoples populating the Levant;  the most prominent being the Canaanites, Aegeans, Aramaeans, and Phoenicians.  For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on the Phoenicians and their pursuit of a thallasocracy (defined as a maritime empire) based on the sale of lumber throughout the Mediterranean. 

The results of their commercial interests and sea-faring exploits had a special impact on the timbered areas of Lebanon, as near-total denudation took place.  Of secondary importance to this paper will be the effect of military campaigns and the exaction of tribute on Levantine deforestation.

1       Along coastal strips and lowlands of the Mediterranean, the primary areas of settlement, forested land was rapidly cleared. [Semple, p.266]  As a consequence, a lumber trade developed between well-timbered regions and sparsely-timbered or deforested regions of the Mediterranean.  For nearly three millennia (c. 2600 B.C. - 138 A.D.), the timber from the mountains of Lebanon served obvious needs of early settlement, demand for fuel, ship and other building material, and timber for cabinets inclusive. [Semple, p.267]2   

   Writers such as Theophrastus, Homer, Pliny, and Plato, along with the Old Testament provide the modern world with documented descriptions of the once richly forested mountains of Lebanon.  The wood's importance in social development and improving the economic well-being of ancient civilizations is also alluded to in the historical record.
3        Among the most significant centers of trade in lumber were Sidon and Tyre.  Due to their geographic location close to the sea, the cities acted as ports for trade, wherein cedar logs from the outlying mountains would be felled and sent down stream, often tied together as rafts.  The destinations were, in these cases, often populous coastal lowland nations, e.g. Egypt and Palestine, which had little timber and a need for building materials. [Baramki, p.19 and Semple, p.271]  "...Phoenicia, especially Byblos, supplied Egypt with the timber which she needed for her buildings, her boats, her furniture and fuel, and especially her funerary equipment.  Vast quantities of cedar and pine timber were made into rafts and towed by boats from Byblos, mainly to Egypt, as early as 2800 B.C..." [Baramki, p.18]  Egypt chose Phoenician ports for commercial relationships because of its relative proximity.

 The next nearest source of lumber trade would have had to come from Amanus or Cyprus. [Meiggs, p.62]       Records detail trading relationships which developed for such important historical constructions as Jerusalem's new temple built by King Solomon of Israel.  A contract was made between Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre, wherein cedar logs from the mountains of Lebanon, as well as pine, were gathered and sent downstream for the specific purpose of building the famously ornate Second Temple.

The communication between the two kings reads:  þAs you dealt with David my father and sent him cedar to build himself a house to dwell in, so deal with me.þ [II Chronicles, ii.3]  Biblical passages such as this one represent the most detailed record of the Phoenician lumber trade.  It is written that Solomon even went so far as to send forced laborers to Phoenicia in order to assist in the clearing and facilitate the transportation of cedar to Palestine.4 [Mikesell, p.18]  Meiggs contends that securing cedar wood was a necessity for Solomon,  because he was attempting to compete with other regional kingdoms for prestige and reputation. Lebanese cedars built into the Israelite Temples would help Solomon in this regard. [Meiggs, p.69]   

   Of further interest, Harden explains the dominating Phoenician influence in the temple's architecture.  "The full description in the Bible of Solomon's temple at Jerusalem, built as it was by Phoenician workmen, gives some indication of what an important temple looked like."  He continues, "The inner sanctuary...of Solomonþs temple was panelled with cedars from floor to ceiling and its ceiling was of cedar beams and planks forming recessed panels." [Harden, p.91 and p.141, as well as Mikesell, p.18]  Meiggs provides the details:    

   Cedars were also lavishly used in the palace and adjoining buildings.  The so-called House of the Forest of Lebanon was larger than the temple, 150x75x45 feet.  The wide span of seventy-five feet, more than twice the width of the temple, needed internal supports for the roof.  There were four rows of cedar columns with beams of cedar over them and further lengths of cedar on top of the walls, which were made of carefully cut blocks of stone.  These two series of cedar beams formed the basis of the roof, with smaller cedar timbers over them and a sealing of mud.  Cedar was also used for the panelling of the Hall of Judgement. [Meiggs, pp.70-71]     

   These Tyrian and Sidonian commercial relationships with the Israelites represent the level at which Levantine cedar timber was esteemed in Palestine.  Not only were cedars used in the first two sacred temples of the Israelites, but contracts were also made to ship Phoenician timber for the restoration of the Second Temple (c. 520 B.C.). [Ezra, iii.7]

 The relationship continued to develop, as men of Kings Hiram and Solomon engaged in joint commercial expeditions along the Mediterranean. [Meiggs, pp.71-72]        In another case, because timber along the coastal region of Asia Minor was exhausted, cedar wood from Lebanon was imported for the well-reputed edifice:  the Temple of Diana. [Semple, p.275]

Also, in  sixth century B.C. Egypt, Amasis claimed that he happened upon Osirisþ sacred barge at Thebes.  Upon finding that it was made of weak, small acacia wood, he rebuilt it with strong, large cedar wood. [Meiggs, p.59]  A further popular use of cedar timber in antiquity was with monumental doors and roofing.  In the Near East, as well as Rome and Greece, long boards of cedar were cut for roofs and temple and palace doors.  The famed temples of Seti I at Thebes and Osiris at Abydos serve as examples of cedar-based architecture. [Meiggs, p.64]    

  Additionally, because of its richly forested mountains, the Levantine region was the object of repeated conquest by neighboring peoples, most notably Babylonia, which had been importing wood for its temples as early as 3,000 B.C.5 [Semple, p. 271]  Throughout antiquity, however, there was a demonstrated effort on the part of all controlling nations to make use of the cedar timber of Lebanon. Meiggs explains that, "The most colorful records [of the forest area vegetation pattern] are the royal inscriptions of Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings, who thought it natural to include records of their tree-felling in the accounts of their military campaigns and to hand down to posterity a description of the palaces they built." [Meiggs, p.53 and Mikesell, p.12] 

The conquest of areas surrounding the mountains of Lebanon, therefore, provide modernity with a veritable historical record of the forests, as well as documentation of the several uses of its timber and efforts at clearing areas.  "Cedar was thought to be the prize which all the states of the Near East coveted, and for which the empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia were prepared to fight." [Meiggs, p.55]      

 Accounts abound concerning the diminution of cedar timber in the mountains of Lebanon as a result of tribute payments.  Due to the constant quest for control of the valuable forested lands, records from various royal peoples detail the spoils of their successful military campaigns.  Thut-Mose III, Seti I, and Ramses III are but a few who made a point of mentioning the fine timber secured from Lebanon as tribute;  the cedars supplied them with wood for ships, ceremonial barques, beams, masts, temples, etc. [Mikesell, p.12] 

The Phoenicians, often were required to construct ships as well.  Meiggs contends that this was the case with the campaign of Thut-Mose III, who demanded ships be built so that his armies could cross the Euphrates.  "When my majesty crossed over to the marshes of Asia, I had many ships of cedar built on the mountains of God's Land near the Lady of Byblos." [Quoted in Meiggs, pp.65-66]     

  Oftentimes, military campaigns consisted of elaborate plans for logging expeditions (the means of assuring payment of tribute). Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar inscribed the details on-site in stone:        I cut through steep mountains, I split rocks, opened       passages and [thus] I constructed a straight road for the       [transport of the] cedars.  I made the Arahtu float       [down] and carry to Marduk, my lord, mighty cedars, high       and strong, of precious beauty and of excellent dark       quality, the abundant yield of Lebanon, as [if they be]       reed stalks carried by the river. [As quoted by Mikesell,       p.13]          In this way, Egyptians and Mesopotamians used military means to overcome a domestic shortage of a natural resource which was slow to replenish itself.6

 Leaders of these various nations then, looked at wood as a justification for military campaigns;  the exaction of tribute enabled conquerors of the Levant to appropriate, and thence denude, parts of the Levantþs rich supply of forested land.  By doing this, they easily circumvented shortcomings at home.  Spoils of victory in the ancient Near East, then, included wood from Lebanon

.7  Cycles of consolidated power in Egypt and Mesopotamia (later Persia too) reflected the fluctuations in Phoenician commercial history and forest use.  Relative prosperity by either one of the flanking kingdoms amounted to effective control of the Levantine timber (which often manifested in demands for tribute). [Meiggs, pp.72-73]  Isaiah's terse memorial for the forest-clearing Nebuchadnezzar (upon his death in 562) reads:       The whole world has rest and is at peace;             it breaks into cries of joy.       The pines themselves and the cedars of Lebanon exult over you.             Since you have been laid low, they say,             no man comes up to fell us.       [Isaiah, 14:7-8]         Mesopotamia, not unlike Egypt, contained sparse plots of serviceable trees.  In order to supply the Mesopotamian kingdoms in antiquity with wood for palaces and temples, external supply sources were sought.

 At first, Amanus was chosen because it was closer;  however, as detailed above (fn.7), the tall cedars of Lebanon soon overshadowed their shorter Syrian counterparts from Amanus.  Lebanese timber, then, became the object of veneration and eventual conquest. [Meiggs, p.63]       Historically, the Phoenicians had the most prominent and dominating influence (commercially-speaking) in the Levant.  Owing to their Aegean ancestry, the Phoenicians were a great sea-faring people, and their fleet of ships were built primarily with cedar and pine timber from the mountains of Lebanon.8 [Semple, p.270-71] Baramki points out that the Phoenician people, "[E]stablished a thalassocracy over the Mediterranean for over four centuries and over the Aegean for at least three and a half centuries. 

They were never eclipsed as a maritime nation until the rise of Venice, Genoa and Pisa in the Middle Ages.  It is this fusion of [the Aegean and Canaanite] races which heralded the Golden Age of Phoenician greatness." [Baramki, p.26]        Harden adds that the joining of trade in raw materials, such as cedar timber, and imported raw materials helped to establish their maritime dominance. [Harden, p.137]  Baramki  further maintains that, þIt was the unlimited produce of the hinterland from the Lebanon to the Persian Gulf that they carried over the seas to Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Africa, Spain and the Islands in the basin of the western Mediterranean and brought back the products of the latter countries to Phoenicia whence they were carried...to the hinterlands of Asia.þ [Baramki, p.62]    

  From the location of Phoenician settlement, it may be extrapolated that the cedar timber from Lebanon, by virtue of its geographical proximity, provided an integral - perhaps even a necessary - resource with which their thalassocracy was established and on which it thrived. [Baramki, p.63]  Additionally, it may be suggested that the cedar forests, which provided the Phoenicians with the timber needed to produce their galleys, helped to export the several products (other than wood) for which Phoenicians are famous:  namely the alphabet, knowledge of astronomy, and their renowned purple dyes, as well as, "[P]roducts of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria and Syria to the Greek world, to North Africa, to Sicily, to Spain, and even to the remote coast of Etruria." [Baramki, pp.58-62]  Richer detail of Phoenician trade is added by Ezekiel: "[T]he markets of Tyre...offered linen from Egypt, silver, tin, lead, and iron from Spain, copper from Cyprus, horses, mules, and articles of bronze from Asia Minor, sheep and goats from Arabia, gold precious stones, and spices from Yemen, and a host of other products from near and far." [Ezekiel xxvii.1-25]  It was the ship building, however, that served as the primary industry of the Phoenicians during their Golden Age. [Baramki, p.63]     

 Evidence of cedar timber brought from Phoenicia to nations along the Mediterranean, especially that which was used in the construction of buildings, is extant in texts and historical artifacts. [Semple, p.270]  Nevertheless, timber from other regional forests near and around the Mediterranean contributed significantly to the resource supply.  "It was especially the northern mountains of the Mediterranean Basin, with their heavier rainfall and denser forests, which yielded the most ample and varied supply of timber, and which therefore, furnished the chief cargoes for the lumber fleets of ancient times."[Semple, p.273]      

 The cedar lumber from Lebanon, therefore, did not serve as an exclusive resource in antiquity.  Nevertheless, the Levantine forests were the object of continual military campaigns.  This point serves as a marker of the cedar woodþs relative value in the Mediterranean.  "In addition to the Levantine forests, pine was available on Jabal Sinjar, and oak, juniper, hawthorn, and other species could be found in the Zagros range.  Thus the importance of the Phoenician forests is probably best explained not merely by a need for timber but, rather, by a desire for timber of exceptional size." [Mikesell, pp.16-17] 

The consequent campaigns in the Levant when other wood could be had were an indication of the cedar timberþs veneration.       Lebanese cedar wood was revered for various reasons by ship builders and those involved in the construction of buildings. Pliny used the cedars of Lebanon as a standard by which all other timbers would be measured.  [Semple, p.283]  The Greek historian Diodorus also documented the relative strength and beauty of the Lebanese cedars. [Meiggs, p.57] 

Detail of the venerable cedars is provided by Meiggs.  He describes how, when given a choice among Levantine woods, the cedar was an obvious first option:       The kings of Mesopotamia and Egypt chose cedar before fir for several reasons.  As a tree it was a patrician, the fir plebeian. The wood of the cedar, unlike the fir, resisted rot and insects and was very durable, as was demonstrated in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the roof-beams of which were of cedar and still in good condition four hundred years later.  It also had an attractive aromatic scent, took a good polish, and was appreciated by carpenters and cabinet-makers because it had a close, straight grain and was easy to work.  ...[B]oth cypress and juniper were less handsome and neither could compare with the cedar in height. [Meiggs, p.55]     

 Around the time of Plato, the local forests of Greece were denuded, and as a result, the Athenians imported an extensive amount of timber, most notably from Phoenicia. [Semple, p.276]  It is this wood that contributed to the development of the great Athenian fleet of ships. [Semple, p.276]  Semple establishes that:       Later the expansion of Macedon over all this coast as far as the Hellespont excluded Athens from her nearest and surest lumber supply, and jeopardized her sea connection with the Caucasus and Pontic forests, until her incorporation into Philipþs empire again opened these sources of supply.

 Athens revolted from Cassander in 305 B.C. and forfeited her right to use the Macedonian forests. Then she turned to Demetrius of Syria and was promised timber for a hundred war ships.  The wood doubtless came from the Lebanon range. [Semple, p.277]       Theophrastus attests to the acclaimed utility of cedar (along with fir and pine) in ship-building in several of his passages. [Cited in Meiggs, pp.56-57]  The reputation of  Lebanese cedarsþ durability and fragrance traversed the Mediterranean to the Greek and Roman worlds. 

It later penetrated the world of the Persian empire as well.  In fact, references provided by historians cite the Phoenicians' cedars as being central to the construction of the Persian fleet which battled the Greeks during the fifth century B.C. [Meiggs, p.83]       Clearly, lumber from the Levant proved to be an invaluable resource in antiquity.  The cedarþs seemingly endless supply in the sparsely forested eastern Mediterranean region, along with its intrinsic value, helped to bring its reputation to one of prominence.  Hitti provides the relevant citations.  "[The Lebanese cedarsþ] excellences have been sung by poets, prophets and historians.  References abound to its strength (Ps. 29:5), durability (Jer. 22:14), majesty (2 K. 14:9;  Zech. 11:1-2), suitability for carving (Is. 44:13-15), stateliness (Is. 2:13; Ezek. 17:22)."9 [Hitti, p.37]  The prose in Ezekiel sufficiently attests to the cedar's reputation:       Look at Assyria:  it was a cedar in Lebanon,             whose fair branches overshadowed the forest,       towering high with its crown finding a way through the              foliage.       Springs nourished it, underground waters gave it height,       their streams washed the soil all around it       and sent forth their rills to every tree in the country.     

o it grew taller than every other tree.       Its boughs were many, its branches spread far;             for water was abundant in the channels.       In its boughs all the birds of the air had their nests,       under its branches all wild creatures bore their young,       and in its shadow all great nations made their home.       A splendid great tree it was, with its long spreading boughs,       for its roots were beside abundant waters.       [Ezekiel 31:3-7]    

        The reverence for and knowledge of the forests of Lebanon in ancient Mesopotamia is presumed in tales from antiquity, such as The Epic of Gilgamesh.  The story tells that, þWhen they had come down from the mountain, Gilgamesh seized the axe in his hand:  he felled the cedar.  When Humbaba heard the noise far off, he was enraged;  he cried out, þwho is this that has violated my woods and cut down my cedar?þþ [The Epic of Gilgamesh, 2nd millennium B.C.] Mikesell elaborates on the historical references:  "[T]he vivid forest episode of the Gilgamesh Epic suggests an awareness among ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia of a vast 'green mountain,' where tall cedars þraised aloft their luxurianceþ and cast a þdelightful shade." [Mikesell, p.14]       Historically, resinous wood such as the Lebanese cedar had numerous applications, and as a result, was continually sought after.  Semple delineates its uses:      

ccording to the evidence, the crying need of eastern Mediterranean lands was for ship timber.  A multitude of fishing smacks, naval vessels, merchant ships, and coastwise transportation boats kept up the demand for fir, pine, cedar and minor woods which entered into their construction.  The coniferous forests were therefore constantly levied upon;  and they were further depleted by the steady demand for pitch, tar, and resin.

Traffic in these usually accompanied the lumber trade, and emanated from the same sources of supply...       The demand for all products of resinous woods was relatively greater in antiquity than now.  They were employed for the preservation of ship wood and all ship equipments, for coating the interior of earthenware wine jars, and for the preparation of volatile oils, salves and ointments, which were almost universally used in ancient times.  Resin and tar were the chief basis for cough medicines prepared by Greek physicians, and were ingredients of salves for external use. 

Oil of cedar, distilled from the Syrian cedar, was regularly used for these purposes, because its antiseptic or cleansing qualities were recognized.  It was exported from Phoenicia to Egypt where it was needed for embalming the dead. The Romans used it for soaking wood as a protection against decay and insect attack.  This was the ancient forerunner of the modern creosoting process.  [Semple, p.282]             Baramki adds another dimension to the historical record when noting that Egypt, "one of the largest timber-consuming countries of antiquity," required cedar wood for the solar barque of Raþ, but it did not possess the natural resource domestically.  Indeed, because of Egyptþs funerary rituals and buildings, trade with timber suppliers, such as the Phoenicians, developed. [Baramki, p.19]  Mikesell substantiates this by noting that cedar wood was, "[P]rized by Egyptian builders of sarcophagi, coffins, and other appurtenances of burial.  In addition, resins from cedar, fir, and pine were used in mummification." [Mikesell, p.13]  Edifices as well as coffins throughout Egyptian and other north African archaeological sites also bear this point out. [Harden, p.141]     

  Nevertheless, overland commercial trading proved to be problematic in most instances for Egypt because of the dangers posed by the nomadic bandits of the Sinai Peninsula and Palestine. [Baramki, p.19]  As a result, oversea trading with a maritime power such as Phoenicia was cheaper and more reliable - not to mention safer.  Thus, a commercial relationship spawned by sea.  At times, however, the relationship was quite lopsided, as Egypt periodically maintained control over Byblos and other nations occupying the Levant. [Baramki, p.21]  Consequently, much of the timber Phoenicia exported to Egypt was done partly as a form of tribute. [See above and Baramki, p.21]     

 The bandits were not limited to the Sinai and Palestine, however.  Evidence points to a perennial problem with robbers living in the Levantine mountains as well.  Reportedly, they were able to hinder Phoenician commerce and harass woodsmen from the highlands to the Mediterranean.  This domestic problem was tempered for a short time during the reign of Hadrian;  nevertheless, it continued unabated for some time during free Phoenician rule. [Mikesell, p.21]  

  Unfortunately, along with the great tales of the rich forests of Lebanon and the collateral commercial and economic opportunities, come stories of forest clearing and denudation.  Due to the relatively limited supply of lumber along the eastern Mediterranean, as well as the extensive demand placed upon it by the rapidly growing population centers in the area, denudation of the Levantine forests took place rather quickly.10 [Semple, p.289] Additionally, only the best trees, Lebanon cedars inclusive, were sought after for the construction of elaborate and ornate palaces, temples, and other buildings.

 As this demand grew progressively over time, the timber supply correspondingly dwindled into a state of scarcity. [Semple, p.290]       Evidence of exploitation in times of modernity records that, Timber from Mount Lebanon was undoubtedly used in construction of the first Muslim fleet (c. 645) at Acre and Tyre.  Evidence that the pine forest near Beirut was exploited for shipbuilding during the Crusades has already been cited.  That timber continued to be exported from Mount Lebanon is indicated by the use of cedar in Umayyad palaces and mosques.  Similarly, when al-Mansur moved the seat of Abbasid government from Baghdad to Samarra in 836, he ordered that wood for the new capital should be imported from "Antioch and all the littoral of Syria." [Mikesell, pp.23-24]      

 Grainger recounts some of the perils faced by the forests of Lebanon.  He explains that, "Not only was timber used for ships - both warships and merchant ships - but it was used as fuel for many other industries.  Theophrastus mentions two especially located in Phoenicia, burning lime to make mortar and a technique for producing pitch which involved burning the living tree. 

Further, an old-established industry at the cities or, at least, Tyre and Sidon, was bronze manufacture, while Sidon was known for the manufacture of glass, both of which consumed great quantities of fuel."[Grainger, pp.71-72]   Mikesell adds that, "[M]erchants of Damascus, Tripoli, and other Levantine cities continued to exploit its denuded slopes for firewood and charcoal, a practice that persists today.' [Mikesell, p.24]  Therefore, it is clear that the industries of Phoenicia that have survived over time contributed (and contribute) significantly to the permanent state of deforestation in Lebanon.  In an attempt at verification of this, Mikesell interpolates the historical record from details surrounding current lifestyles of Druze and Maronite villagers atop Mount Lebanon.

 Many, for instance, have noticed that smelting and wood-consuming industries exist to this day. [Mikesell, p.23]         With the denudation of the forests came the denudation of the soil, the consequence of which was a feedback effect.  An absence of forest cover resulted in a scouring of the earth by torrential autumn rains.  Humus was washed away leaving the mountain sides barren and vulnerable to the elements. [Semple, p.291]  "In many sections of the Mediterranean a single deforestation has meant denudation of the soil also and hence, the permanent destruction of the forests.  Hence all Mediterranean lands today show a low percentage of forested area, despite the predominant mountain relief which would naturally be devoted to tree growth."[Semple, p.291]

 The loss of fertile soil closed the causal loop;  trees are unable to grow back and replenish the barren area once home to dense forests.  It can only be assumed that plants and animals dependent on the forest growth and cover also perished as a result of the twin forms of denudation.       The difficulty in replenishing the timber supply is due in part also to the porous limestone soils, which only produce a maqui when devoid of tree life.11 [Semple, p.261]  Maronite and Druze villages high atop points of Mount Lebanon have given tacit approval of shepherding, which has resulted in the destruction of seedlings and the felling of many remaining, mature trees. [Mikesell, p.23]  Goat and sheep grazing, fires (either begun intentionally or accidentally), summer droughts, lack of shade, and the excruciatingly slow accumulation of soil, have all worked against any natural replenishment as well as human-introduced efforts at reforestation. [Semple, pp.290-91] 

The forests suffer seemingly permanent losses as a consequence.  "With the exception of quick-growing pines, coniferous species seldom play a prominent role in the colonization of abandoned land, for goats continue to range over most of Mount Lebanon.  Cedar, delicate in its reproductive requirements and slow to mature is especially ill equipped to colonize in regenerating formations used as goat pasture." [Mikesell, p.25]        Although the Phoenicians were largely responsible for the cedar lumber's extensive trade and consequent scarcity, they also, quite possibly, helped to preserve what exists today.  In other words, the insight and resourcefulness of the Phoenicians likened them to environmentally conscious traders. 

They recognized that their timber supply was depleting, and they sought to maintain it as best as they knew how.  Semple explains, "One is led to surmise also that those expert Phoenician woodsmen, who were commended by King Solomon, may have understood the fundamental principles of forestry and therefore have intelligently exploited their timber supplies."[Semple, p.289]  As the wood grew scarcer, the Phoenicians looked elsewhere for timber supplies and carefully preserved the remains.       

The motive for the Phoenician invasion of Cyprus (eleventh century B.C.) quite probably was due, at least in part, to the necessity of preserving and conserving the timber from the mountains of Lebanon.  The forested mountains of Cyprus furnished an alternate supply source of timber for the Phoenicians as resources in the Levant began to dwindle. [Semple, p.271]     

 There were several other short-lived attempts throughout history at protecting the forests from clearing and exploitation. Emperor Hadrian provides an excellent example of this effort at delimiting an area of preservation and control.  The Mamluk dynasty also looked upon the wood from the Levant with great reverence; consequently, the sultans controlled the forest land and regulated (often from Damascus) the use of its timber. [Mikesell, p.24]       In sum, the development of lumber trade in the Mediterranean in times of antiquity has left the mountains of Lebanon with few of its historically venerable cedar trees.  Harden reports that, "The Lebanon was in ancient times prolific in cedar trees and other useful timber, but only a few plantations now remain, carefully preserved. 

The best lies near the source of the Nahr Quadisha, inland from Tripoli." [Harden, p.301]  Several of the existing forests are owned by villages within which the trees stand.  The trees are maintained in expectation of a tourist trade developing; unfortunately, there is evidence that tourism is also contributing to the demise of Lebanese cedars.  Mikesell points to the "incessant trampling of the forest floor by visitors" which "precludes the possibility of its regeneration." [Mikesell, p.27]      

The existing forests scattered about at higher elevations are a consequence of accessibility and modern forms of protection. þIndeed, several of the remnant stands of cedar...can be described as sacred groves.  Chapels have been built in the stands...and the forests...are under the protection of the Maronite patriarch.  The quasi-sacredness of the trees in these stands is indicated by the modern Lebanese reference to them as "cedars of the Lord." [Mikesell, p.27]        Reforestation efforts will be ineffective, however, unless rural economic reform takes place.  Use of wood as charcoals and fuel, as well as goat herding will have to cease.  Mikesell surmises that even with successful reforestation efforts, þThe barren slopes of the Levantine mountains will continue to offer dramatic evidence of the use and misuse of a resource that was once described as the þglory of Lebanon.þþ [Mikesell, p.28 (citing Isaiah, lx.13)]  It is unlikely, therefore, that the much heralded cedars of antiquity will return to their plentiful state. 3.

   RELATED CASES 4.    AUTHOR:  Benjamin T. Kasoff II.   LEGAL CLUSTER 5.    DISCOURSE AND STATUS: DISagreement and COMPlete 6.    FORUM AND SCOPE" PHOENicia and MANY 7.    DECISION BREADTH: 5       he number of groups and nations of people involved have not been statistically noted in the historical record.  Grainger points out that, "Quantification of trade is a task which cannot even be contemplated, since no data exist.  We do not know with any pretence at accuracy any of the relevant numbers - population, numbers of seamen, numbers of ships, production quantities, wealth in total or in breadth of distribution, levels of supply and demand.  For none of these can any figures even be suggested which will not be a guess." [Grainger, p.75] 8.    LEGAL STANDING: LAW III.  GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTER 9.    GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS       Domain:     MIDEAST       Site:       North Mideasst [NMID]       Impact:     LEBANanon 10.   SUB-NATIONAL FACTORS: YES 11.   TYPE OF HABITAT:  TEMPerate IV.   TRADE CLUSTER 12.   TYPE OF MEASURE:  Regulatory Ban [REGBAN]    

  Specific references to trade restrictions are provided by Grainger, Semple, Mikesell, and Meiggs.  Grainger tells of how, "In Roman times, the forests were already restricted to the higher slopes, and the Emperor Hadrian had the bounds of the royal forests marked."  He continues later, "It can be safely assumed that the Phoenician cities along the Lebanese coast controlled the seaward slopes of Mount Lebanon as far as, and including, the forest."[Grainger, pp.17 and 19]  Mikesell further establishes that, "[A]n attempt was made to delimit the surviving forests and mark them as imperial domain."  He adds, "Their appearance elsewhere suggests that the surviving forests were regarded as a threatened, or at least an exhaustible, resource."12 [Mikesell, p.19]  In this sense, restrictions on trade and use of cedar wood appear to have been implemented in order to forestall the diminution of the forested area of Mount Lebanon.    

  Meiggs, contrarily, asserts that it is doubtful Hadrian would have marked inscriptions on rocks covering barren slopes.  The likely reason for the inscriptions was to assert sovereign control over timber that was being felled and cleared.  "The loss to the imperial exchequer was a sufficient motive for making imperial ownership more explicit."[Meiggs, p.87]       Some quantitative data, although perhaps not precise, indicates that 18th and 19th century villagers from Bsharri sought to maintain forest growth.  Figures of its grove tallied twenty-three to twenty-four trees at the end of the 17th century and about four hundred trees by 1810. [Mikesell, p.27]  Currently the Bsharri grove stands as a Lebanese national monument.      

As stated in the description [IB], the forests of Lebanon were under constant siege through the times of antiquity.  Their control was subject to varied laws and directives.  Semple establishes that demand for ship supplies resulted in efforts to control the lumber trade by early governments.  "The object was to guarantee ample provision for the home state, and to cripple rivals by excluding them from the best lumber markets."  She continues, "Even states with abundant lumber permitted its export only by treaty agreement."[Semple, p.267]          Meiggs outlines the taxes and other trade measures legislated by the Assyrian ruler, Sargon II (721-705).  Sargon's letter to Tyre reads:       I levy taxes on anyone who brings down wood, and I       have appointed tax-collectors over the quays of all       Mount Lebanon, and they keep watch...I appointed a       tax-collector over those who come down to the quays       which are in Sidon...I made a statement to them, that       they might bring down the wood and do their work       with it, (but) that they were not to sell it to the       Egyptians or to the Palestinians or I would not allow       them to go up to the mountain. [Quoted in Meiggs, p.75]        

These measures, of course, amount to an historical version of modern-day protectionist-mercantilist trade practice.  Cedar wood was used as a means of control, in the form of taxation, as well as leverage, in the form of timber sanctions on Egypt. Unfortunately, little else has been discovered by this author with respect to specifically delineated measures, save the above scant references. 13.   DIRECT vs. INDIRECT: DIRect 14.   RELATION OF TRADE MEASURE / RESOURCE IMPACT       Directly Related:       Yes WOOD       Indirectly Related:     No       Not Related:            No       Process:                Yes DEFORestation 15.   TRADE PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION: WOOD 16.   ECONOMIC DATA 17.   IMPACT OF TRADE RESTRICTION: MEDIUM 18.   INDUSTRY SECTOR: WOOD 19.   EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS: PHOENicians and MANY       Phoenicians of various cities along the eastern Mediterranean Levantwere wood exporters.  Also, others who dominated the region, including Egypt and Babylonia. Various nations along the Mediterranean were importers, including Greece, Spain, Egypt, Palestine, and Rome, among others. V.    ENVIRONMENT CLUSTER 20.   ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM TYPE: DEFORestation    

  The zone above 1,200 meters in altitude primarily contains conifers, cedars, firs, and junipers. 21.   NUMBER OF SPECIES 22.   RESOURCE IMPACT:  LOW and SCALE 23.   URGENCY OF PROBLEM: LOW and 1200 of years 24.   SUBSTITUTES: Conservation [CONSV] V.    OTHER CLUSTER 25.   CULTURE: YES       The many Biblical references attest to the cultural importance of the case. 26.   HUMAN RIGHTS: NO 27.   TRANS-BOUNDARY ISSUES: YES    

  Military campaigns resulted in the transferal of cleared cedar timber from Phoenicia to nations such as Egypt and Mesopotamia.  Also, the territory of forested areas in Lebanon was delimited at times to implement zones of environmental protection;  boundaries were thus cast. 28.   RELEVANT LITERATURE 1.     Dimitri Baramki.  Phoenicia and the Phoenicians (Khayats: Lebanon, 1961). 2.  E. W. Bealsz.  "The Remnant Cedar Forests of Lebanon," Journal of Ecology.  Volume 53 (1965). 3.  Wallace B. Fleming.  The History of Tyre (Columbia Univ. Press:  NY, 1966). 4.  John D. Grainger.  Hellenistic Phoenicia (Oxford Univ. Press: NY, 1991) 5.  Donald Harden.  The Phoenicians (Frederick A. Praeger, Inc.: NY, 1963). 6.  Philip K. Hitti.  Lebanon in History (Macmillan:  London, 1967). 7.  Russell Meiggs.  Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean (Clarendon Press:  Oxford, 1982).                    8.  Marvin W. Mikesell. "The Deforestation of Mount Lebanon," The Geographical Review. Volume LIX, Number 1 (January, 1969). 9.  Sabatino Moscati.

 The World of the Phoenicians (Frederick A. Praeger, Inc.:  NY, 1968). 10. M. B. Rowton.  "The Woodlands of Ancient Western Asia," Journal of Near Eastern Studies.  Volume 26 (1967). 11.  N. K. Sanders.  The Epic of Gilgamesh (Penguin Classics: Harmondsworth and Baltimore, 1960). 12. Ellen Churchill Semple.  Geography of the Mediterranean Region (Henry Holt and Co.:  NY, 1931). 13. D. S. Walker.  The Mediterranean Lands (Methuen & Co.: London, 1962).                                   

  References   1.    Mikesell reports that the earliest Egyptian and Mesopotamian documents detail the value of the Levantine timber.  The records continue their documentation through the rule of Emperor Hadrian. 2.    It is believed that Sidon, another Levantine port city, also sent cedar logs from Lebanon to Jerusalem for Solomon. [Semple, p.269] 3.    Semple notes that, "Scarcity of timber made tall trees conspicuous landmarks and even objects of worship." [Semple, pp.265, 268-69] 4.    The Bible cites a figure that is most probably exaggerated (30,000 men).  The likely figure is quite less according to Meiggs, p.70. 5.

   Although not in dispute with Semple, Mikesell dates the first direct evidence of the Phoenician timber trade at c. 2600 B.C. from indications on the Palermo stone.  The records of Pharaoh Snefru, þ[A]cknowledge the arrival of forty ships filled with cedar wood and then boast of the construction of a ship of this wood a hundred cubits (about 170 feet) long and the use of cedar in making doors of a palace.þ [Mikesell, p.12.  Also see Meiggs, p.63]  Although the evidence is not entirely clear, documentation points to the fact that the cedar wood came from Byblos of Phoenicia.  For evidentiary details, see Meiggs, pp.64-65.

 6.    Mikesell indicates that although Egypt was not devoid of trees, its supply paled in comparison to that of the Levant, both qualitatively and quantitatively.  "Cultivated trees, such as the fig and the date palm, could not be felled while they were productive, and wild species, such as the acacia, were of limited use in construction.  The tall conifers of Mount Lebanon provided suitable lumber for shipbuilding and were indispensable in the construction of palaces and other large buildings." [Mikesell, p.13] 7.

   As an example, annual tribute to the Assyrian ruler Shalmeneser III (858-821) amounted to one talent of silver, two talents of purple wool, and two hundred cedar logs. [Meiggs, p.74]  For further references to Assyrian exaction of tribute and a description of the timberþs uses, see Mikesell, p.13. 8.    Baramki maintains that the Phoenicians, a race which joined Canaanites and Aegeans, "[S]tepped into the gap left by the disruption of the Aegean world, and inherited the thalassocracy...  [T]he new race of mariners were not entirely ignorant of the waters through which they plied, partly from the Aegean side of their ancestry and partly from the fact that they were seamen from time immemorial." [Baramki, p.58] 9.

    Also see Psalms xxxvii.35, lxxx.10, xcii.12;  Amos ii.9.  These citations further describe the beauty, fragrance, and durability of the Lebanese cedars. 10.    Contradictory accounts are provided by Procopius, who detailed Emperor Justinianþs quest for timber on the northern side of Mount Lebanon.  There he described a dense forest cover with notably tall cedar trees.  There is no reason to believe, however, that this swathe of forested land remained for long. [Mikesell, p.20] 11.   Thick, scrubby underbrush prominent along the Mediterranean coasts. 12.   Mikesell refers those interested in the actual forest inscriptions of Hadrian (and can read French) to Ernest Renan's "Mission de Phenicie." (Paris, 1864).

Dit moet redelik duidelik was dat die gebruik van duursame hout  beheer is deur diegene wat beheer oor die
woude van Lebanon uitgeoefen het. So is sanksies teen Egypte ingestel en die uitvoer van hout daarheen vir 'n tydperk verbied.

 Toe voorraad begin min raak, is daar aanduidings dat die  Fenesiërs, seevaders  wat skepe gebou en herstel het na alternatiewe bronne begin soek het en hul aandag op Ciprus toegespits het.

Ons lees nêrens in die Bybel dat Jesus se familie ambagsmanne was wat groot in aanvraag was.
Trouens dit wil eerder voorkom of hul doodgewone ambagsmanne was wat moes werk vir hul daaglikse brood.

Ek reken dat dit ook 'n rede was waarom hy maklik aanklank by ruwe vissermanne gekry het.Jesus het as mens ook geweet wat dit beteken om hard te werk en het seker ook heelwat eelte op sy hande gehad.

Ook het hy maklik 'n sweep gemaak en die voorhof van die tempel redelik harhandig skoongemaak, wat aanduidend is dat Hy as mens  oor die fisieke krag beskik het om dit te vermag. Die kap en dra van klip is meer uitputtende werk as net timmer  of skrynwerk en omdat slegs die beste ambagsmanne gebruik is vir die bewerking van duursame hout sou 'n mens reken dat die dissipels wel erêns van dit sou melding gemaak het, aangesien sulke mense hoog in aanvraag was.

F C Boot

Dankie vir die leersame inligting mbt. die seders van Lebanon.  Ek is net nuuskierig.  Hoekom is dit vir jou so belangrik dat Jesus nie 'n timmerman of skrynwerker behoort te  gewees het nie?

Enige oplettende leser sou opgelet het dat Jesus volgens die Evangelies nie 'n biologiese vader het nie. Alle biologiese materiaal was dus afkomstig van sy moeder en dit is dus haar bloedlyn wat belangrik is vir die vervulling van die profesieë en nie sy stiefpa nie.

Dis dan ook een van die dinge wat wetenskaplikas onmoontlik verklaar en as sotheid bestempel word.Jesus se Vader was die GOD  wat Homself in die skeppingsverhaal openbaar.

 As dit nie so was nie sou Jesus nog net 'n doodgewone sterflike mens gewees het wat nooit die dood sou kon oorwin het nie.Dit gaan dus nie net in die Christelike geloof oor die vergewing van sondes nie, wat niks beteken nie, as daar nie ook 'n opstanding is nie want dit is die opgestane mens met 'n nuwe en in Bybelse terme verheerlikte liggaam, gelykvormig aan Jesus, wat met sy Skepper vereenig word en nie die sterflike biologiese mens nie.

Die sterflike biologiese mens bly vasgevang tydens sy tyd op aarde in 'n liggaam wat later soos 'n gelapte tent lyk waarin 'n  'n natuur gehuisves word  wat eerder neig na die 'kwaad' as die 'goeie'.

Daar is baie oor  geskryf oor Jesus se afdtamming en die wat belangstel kan ook die artikel onder  http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/geneal.htm lees.

F C Boot 

Jy skryf: "Enige oplettende leser sou opgelet het dat Jesus volgens die Evangelies nie 'n biologiese vader het nie. Alle biologiese materiaal was dus afkomstig van sy moeder en dit is dus HAAR bloedlyn wat belangrik is vir die vervulling van die profesieë en nie sy stiefpa nie" 

Indien jy my oplettend gelees het, het ek hierbo gese:  "Volgens die Nuwe Testament is Jesus se bloedlyn, deur sy MOEDER, direk van Dawid afkomstig, maar glad nie deur SALOMO nie". 

Nathan, 'n ander seun van Dawid, en nie Salomo, is Maria se voorvader tot Dawid.  Die geslagregisters van Lukas (tov Maria) en Matheus (tov Josef), stem glad nie ooreen nie, behalwe vir Dawid wat altwee in gemeen het.

'n Messianse vereiste is dat die Messias van Dawid afstam, en deur Salomo se bloedlyn uitgeken sou word.  In Maria se geval is dit glad nie so nie.  Die  Nuwe Testament kan beweer dat Jesus die Seun van God is; 'n geslagtelike unie tussen God en Maria; maar kan volgens Ou Testamentiese vereiste, glad nie as Messias daarop aanspraak maak nie.

"Wanneer jy  tot sterwe kom en jy by jou voorvaders rus, sal Ek een van jou nageslag, jou eie seun (Salomo), koning maak en aan hom 'n bestendige koningskap gee.  Hy sal vir my Naam 'n huis bou (die tempel), en ek sal sy koningskap VIR ALTYD LAAT VOORTBESTAAN.  Ek sal vir hom 'n VADER wees en hy sal vir my 'n SEUN wees.  As hy ontrou is, sal ek mense gebruik om hom te straf, hom te kasty.  Maar (nieteenstaande) my trou sal Ek NIE aan hom ontrek soos ek dit met Saul gedoen het nie"  2 Sam. 12 - 15

"Uit al my seuns, want die Here het my baie seuns  gegee (Nathan, Maria se voorvader oa.) , het Hy my (jongste) seun Salomo GEKIES om te sit op die troon van waar hy die Here self oor Israel sal regeer.  Jou seun sal vir My 'n Tempel bou want Ek het hom as my SEUN gekies, en ek sal vir hom 'n VADER wees". 1 Kron. 28: 5 - 6.

Salomo was 'n sinnebeeld van 'n messias.  Hy was deur God gesalf; daar was die Vader / Seun verwantskap;  hy het Israel se bakleilustige stamme vereenig; die Tempel gebou met God se Gees (die Shekainah) in die allerheiligste vertrek; en gedurende sy koningskap het Israel hoogdy in vreedsaamheid gevier.  'n Messiaanse tydperk, met 'n Messiaanse koning.

Nou maat.  Mattheus se geslagregister is nie verniet in die Bybel geplaas nie.  Die doel is ooglopend om te probeer bewys dat Jesus (deur middel van sy stiefpa Josef) wel Salomo as voorvader gehad het om as Messias te kan kwalifiseer.  Jy het self hierbo gese, met behulp van jou Katolieke bron, dat profesie deur Maria se bloedlyn en nie deur Josef se bloedlyn vervul sou word.  Jy sit nou daadwerklik met 'n probleem om Jesus as Messias, volgens jou en jou Katolieke bron, uit te ken, want sonder Josef se bloedlyn, kan dit nie geskied nie. 

Soos die geval met Josef se geslagregister, is baie ander gevalle in die Nuwe Testament, gefabriseer om Ou Testamentiese profesie te probeer nakom.

Jaco Fourie

Van wanneer af is die ou Testamentiese vereistes so belangrik?  Jesus het nie gekom om aan Joodse of jou of my vereistes te voldoen nie, maar om die opdrag van Sy Vader uit te voer.Dus as daar nie uit die Bybel of ander geskrifte vasgestel kan word of Jesus wel daaraan voldoen het , is dit van sekondêre belang.

Ons lees dan ook in Lukas 22.41 "Jesus het toe 'n ent van hulle af weggestap sover as 'n mens met 'n klip kan gooi.42.Daar het Hy op sy knieë neergeval en begin bid:"My Vader, kan U asseblief nie u planne verander nie sodat Ek nie meer die pad wat vir My voorlê, hoef te loop nie.Is daar dalk nie 'n ander uitweg nie?.Maar ek probeer nie nou self allerhande planne maak nie.Maak u die planne!Ek val daarby in."

As jy werklik belangstel stel dan van vas wat God se plan is soos dit in die Bybel geopenbaar word.

F C Boot

Jy skryf; "Van wanneer af is die ou Testamentiese vereistes so belangrik?  Jesus het nie gekom om aan Joodse of jou of my vereistes te voldoen nie, maar om die opdrag van Sy Vader uit te voer.Dus as daar nie uit die Bybel of ander geskrifte vasgestel kan word of Jesus wel daaraan voldoen het , is dit van sekondêre belang".

Omrede jy my vrae hierbo glad nie kan be-antwoord nie, verklaar jy sommer net so, die Ou Testament, selfs die Nuwe Testament se vereistes is nie belangrik nie. Op watter gesag maak  jy hierdie stelling, want vir beide Jesus asook sy opvolgers, was die Ou Testament se profetiese vervullings vir hulle van  uiterste belang gewees. Jesus en sy opvolgers het uitsluitlik die Ou Testament as bron verwysingsraamwerk gebruik om sy missie te staaf.  Die Nuwe Testament het glad nie gedurende sy leeftyd bestaan nie. 

Daar is genoegsame tekse in die Nuwe Testament om hierdie stelling van my te staaf. En dat jy kan se: "Dus as daar nie uit die Bybel of ander geskrifte (Nuwe Testament?) vasgestel kan word of Jesus wel daaraan voldoen het , is dit van sekondêre belang" skok my, want wat jy hiermee erken is dat jy suiwer op persoonlike veronderstelling tot die gevolgtrekking kom dat Jesus die Seun van God en die Messias is.

Daar was ander tydgnote van Jesus wat ook aanspraak op Messias gemaak het, die dat teen die kompetisie gewaarsku was, dat daar nie agter "false profete" aangeloop moet word nie.  Daar was oa.:-

Judas - seun van Hezekiah  -  4vC
Simon van Perea - 4 vC
Athronges - 6nC
Samaritaanse Profeet - 36nC
Thadeus - 45nC
Menahem seun van Judas hierbo - 66nC. Laasgenoemde word deur Josefus verkwalik vir die uiteindelike  vernietiging van die Tempel deur die Romeine in 70nC.

As jy geen maatstaf, Ou en Nuwe Testament, kan gebruik nie, hoe weet jy of een van bogenoemde nie werklik die Messias was nie?

Maat.  Indien jou godsdienstige kennis gebrekkig is tot die mate wat jy hier openbaar, raai ek jou aan om liefs stil te bly om vir jou  die verleentheid voor die lesers te vermy.

Jaco Fourie

Die ou Testament is niks meer as die geskiedenis van die volk Israel.Dit is 'n geskiedenis van 'n verbond
tussen 'n volk en GOD.Dit was 'n geslote verbond, met talle voorskrifte.

Hierdie verbond is egter eensydig deur die volk Israel vebreek, wat gelei het tot ballingskap en naderhand die verbrokkeling van die koninkryk en verwoesting van Jerusalem.

Uit hierdie verbrokkelde ryk is daar 'n Verlosser gebore wat nie aan menslike vereistes voldoen het nie,maar tog
'n nuwe koninkryk op aarde kom stig het, nl die Koninkryk van GOD, tot versoening van alle mense met hul Skepper wat Hom (Jesus) gelowig as hul enigste Verlosser en Saligmaker sou aanneem.

Die ou Verbond bestaan nie meer nie .Ons is nou as Christene kinders van 'n nuwe verbond en onderdane van 'n nuwe koninkryk, waarin ons die aangenome kinders van God geword het.Daar was slegs twee vereistes
waaraan Jesus moes voldoen. hy moes volkome mens wees en terselfdertyd  instaat wees om die dood
te oorwin.

Christus het aan die twee vereistes voldoen.Ongelukkig is jy saam met die Jode nog steeds vasgevang
in die vereistes wat in die ou Testament aan die kinders van die ou verbond gestel is.In Johannes 3 Is Jesus in
gesprek met Nikodemus , 'n belangrike leier in die Joodse gemeenskap en 'n lid van die party van die Fariseërs.

Die Fariseërs was 'n godsdienstige groep wat hoë aansien onder die volk geniet het.Hulle het nie net die wette van Moses getrou probeer nakom nie, maar ook dieselfde probeer met al die ander wette en reëls wat hulself uitgedink en bygevoeg het (Die Bybel A - Z).

En wat sê Jesus nie vir die leier ? Hy se inkort "Die Gees laat jou lewe".

Vers 6. "Immers , 'n kind wat uit 'n mens gebore word is maar net 'n mens.Wie egter uit die Gees gebore word begin geestelik te lewe."

 "7 Daarom moet jy nie vol allerhande vraagtekens wees oor my woorde dat julle nog 'n keer gebore moet word nie. Leer uit die natuur.8.Hoewel jy die wind hoor waai, kan jy dit nie beheer of stuur nie.Dit waai waar dit wil.Jy weet nie eens presies waarvan dit kom of waarheen dit uiteindelik waai nie.Maar nogtans waai dit.Presies  dit is waar van die manier waarop die Gees werk.Elke persoon wat uit die Gees gebore word, ervaar dit ook so."

Sover dit die vereistes van die ou verbond oor die Messias betref oor die Verlosser van Israel is dit die vereistes
wat grotenliks deur mense daar gestel is en wat 'n volk van hul aardse heersers moes verlos en die ou
testamentiese koningkryk moes herstel.

MAAR Jesus is nie gebore om daaraan te voldoen nie. Hy het gekom om die straf van die rebellie teen GOD
te dra en Hy het die mens daarvan verlos toe Hy aan 'n paal  gehang het tussen hemel en aarde.Deut 21-vers 22-23.

Omdat die volk van die ou verbond nie kon voldoen aan die vereistes van die wet nie moes daar gedurig offers gebring en is sondebokke die woestyn ingestuur as draers van die oortredings.Toe die Jode Jesus laat kruisig het het hul nie besef dat hul deur die daad juis God se beloftes vervat in die ou testament laat vervul het.

Hulle het sodoende instrument geword in GOD se plan wat dan sou lei tot die totstandkoming van GOD se koninkryk hierop aarde.Jou vrae  is slegs relevant as jy soos die Jode 'n Messias wil hê wat die aardse koninkryk moet herstel en dan die grondgebied met geweld sal afneem van die mense wat nou daar woon.

Dit is duidelik dat Jesus glad nie aan die verwagting van die Jode  omtrent hul siening van 'n Messias voldoen het nie.Jy is egter nie alleen in jou siening nie, selfs Jesus se dissipels het dit nie na drie jaar saam met Jesus verstaan nie, wat hul wou op die berg van verheerliking 'n aantal hutte bou, vir Jesus en sy besoekers,
'n aardse woning dus.

.F C Boot

Wat hierdie artikel sê, het ek mos reeds hierbo soos volg opgesom: "Die Ou Testament se siening van die Messias vir die laaste dae is 'n militere Joodse koning wat direk van Dawid EN Salomo afstam, wat die Jode in die diaspora na Israel sal laat terugkeer, die Tempel herbou, en die offerhandes weer herstel, asook die Sanhedrin.  Die Jubeljaar sal ook weer ingestel word.  Israel as die adelstand, sal die wereld in vrede heers, met die non-Jode in aanbidding van die Joodse God.  Die messias is 'n mens, en nie 'n God nie". 

Dit is die Nuwe Testament wat daarop aanspraak maak dat Jesus die Messias is. en probeer dit te bywys deur middel van vele tekse vanuit die Ou Testament ter stawing daarvan  te kwoteer, oa die geslagregisters van Maria en Josef deur uit te wys hy is van  Dawid afgestam.  Net soos ek gese het, se jou bron ook, nl: "3. The Messiah traces his lineage only through King Solomon (II Samuel 7:12-17; I Chronicles 22:9-10). But according to Luke 3:31, Jesus was not a descendant of Solomon, but of Solomon's half-brother Nathan. Therefore Jesus was not a descendant of King David through King Solomon, and fails this test as well"

Die Christendom beweer nie dat dit 'n spontane nuwe geloof is nie, maar wel 'n voortvloeing van die Ou Testament en dat Jesus as hul Messias 'n vervulling van Ou Testamentiese profesie en verwagtinge is.  Dit is vir hierdie rede dat die Christendom nie die Ou Testament verwerp nie.  Christene beskou hulself as die "geestelike Israel", want hulle kan onmoontlik hulself as deel van die fisiese Israel eien nie.  Volgens Christene, die beloftes aan die fisiese Israel, is nou aan geestelike Israe, nl die Christendom, oorgeplaas.

Ek het voorbeelde hierbo genoem van tydgenote van Jesus wat ook as "messias" beskou was.  Sowat 140 jaar in die Christelike tydvlak was daar deur die Jode aanspraak gemaak dat 'n ene Simon Bar Kohkba die messisa was, omrede hy aan sekere Ou Testamentiesee vereistes aan voldoen het, nl.vir 'n kort tydjie onafhanklikheid van die Romeine bekom, selfs sy eie munt met sy kop daarop geslaan.  Dit het nie lank geduur nie en was deur die Romeine wreed verslaan.  Sederdien het die Jode hulle vorige siening oor Simon Bar Kohba onttrek.

Natuurlik kan beide Jode en Christene nie enige god bewys nie. Vir Israel is Jahova 'n stamgod, en Jesus vir Christene 'n god in die paganistiese sin soos in jou artikel hierbo uitgewys.

Hello FC,