Aramaic Herald: New Discoveries?

First century ossuary inscribed with Sacred Name of God?

On one crudely hand-carved box is what appears to be a large fish spewing forth a person, iconography that suggests the story of Jonah and the whale, a popular Bible story that Christians associate with the resurrection of Christ (just as Jonah was resurrected from the whale). On a second ossuary bearing ornamental rosette carvings is what they claim is a rare inscription: "Jehovah (God), raise up, raise up." It's this inscription in ancient Greek that, together with the fish and Jonah symbols, suggests early Christian beliefs and perhaps a belief in Jesus' resurrection. "It is the only statement of faith found on any ossuary out of some 2,000 [that have been found in the area]," Jacobovici said. Indeed, marking an ossuary with such symbols would have been contrary to Jewish beliefs at the time, as would naming God in stone. This is why Tabor and Jacobovici are convinced the markings represent the beginnings of Christianity.

BUT-Jacobovici has a tendency to sensationalize things and has made some strange leaps to bizarre theories.

For more information see
Questions raised about possible clues to Jesus and disciples Written ByJohn R. Quain Published February 29, 2012 F oxNews.com
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/29/questions-raised-about-possible-clues-to-jesus-and-his-disciples/?intcmp=features#ixzz1npmQxl7v

Help Suffering Aramaic Chrisitans

Iraqi Christian Relief Council, a 501(c)(3) organization, in coordination with entities and organizations in the United States of America, is responsible for educating the Americans of the religious and ethnic cleansing being inflicted on Christians in Iraq. Our objective in raising awareness among the Americans is asking for their prayers, raising, and delivering financial assistance for the Iraqi Christians affected by these atrocities. All contributions are deductible for computing income and estate taxes.

Iraqi Christian Relief Council

P.O. Box 3021

Glenview, IL. 60025

Telephone: 847.401.8846

Info@iraqichristianrelief.org

Juliana Taimoorazy

jtamraz@hotmail.com

Israelis reportedly don't plan to notify US if decision made to strike Iran (Feb 27) Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions told the Associated Press. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill. Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide a strike is necessary, they would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel's potential attack. The U.S. has been working with the Israelis for months to persuade them that an attack would be only a temporary setback to Iran's nuclear program. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak delivered the message to a series of top-level U.S. visitors to the country, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House national security adviser and the director of national intelligence, and top U.S. lawmakers, all trying to close the trust gap between Israel and the U.S. over how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised alarms that its uranium enrichment program might be a precursor to building nuclear weapons. The US has said it does not know whether the government has decided to weaponize its nuclear material and put it on a missile or other delivery device.The secret warning is likely to worry US officials and begin the high level meetings with Israel and the US far apart on how to handle Iran. But the apparent decision to keep the U.S. in the dark also stems from Israel's frustration with the White House. After a visit by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in particular, they became convinced the Americans would neither take military action, nor go along with unilateral action by Israel against Iran. The Israelis concluded they would have to conduct a strike unilaterally -- a point they are likely to hammer home in a series of meetings over the next two weeks in Washington, the official said. Barak will meet with top administration and congressional officials during his visit. Netanyahu arrives in Washington for meetings with President Barack Obama next week. The behind-the-scenes warning belies the publicly united front the two sides have attempted to craft with the shuttle diplomacy to each other's capitals. "It's unprecedented outreach to Israel to make sure we are working together to develop the plan to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon," and to keep them from exporting terrorism, said Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. He traveled there with the intelligence committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., to meet Israel's prime minister and defense minister, along with other officials. "We talked about the fact that sanctions are working and they are going to get a lot more aggressive," Ruppersberger added. They also discussed talked about presenting a unified front to Iran, to counter the media reports that the two countries are at odds over how and when to attack Iran. "We have to learn from North Korea. All those (peace) talks and stalling and they developed a nuclear weapon," he said. "We are going to send a message, enough is enough, the stalling is over. ... All options are on the table." "I got the sense that Israel is incredibly serious about a strike on their nuclear weapons program," Rogers told CNN on Monday. "It's their calculus that the administration ... is not serious about a real military consequence to Iran moving forward. They believe they're going to have to make a decision on their own, given the current posture of the United States," he added. U.S. intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel, despite the high-level impasse, sharing with them options such as allowing Israel to use U.S. bases in the region from which to launch such a strike, as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up, according to the U.S. official, and a former U.S. official with knowledge of the communications

March 2, 2012President Barack Obama warned that he is not bluffing about attacking Iran if it builds a nuclear weapon, but in an interview published Friday, Obama also cautioned U.S. ally Israel that a premature attack on Iran would do more harm than good. His comments appeared aimed more at Israel and its supporters in the United States than at Iran. "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff," he said Obama will try to convince Netanyahu to postpone any plans his government may have to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear facilities in coming months. An attack that soon would not carry U.S. backing

Saudi Arabia May Be Tied to 9/11, 2 Ex-Senators SayBy
ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: February 29, 2012

WASHINGTON — For more than a decade, questions have lingered about the possible role of the Saudi government in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, even as the royal kingdom has made itself a crucial counterterrorism partner in the eyes of American diplomats. Now, in sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis' activities say they believe that the Saudi include the work of a number of Saudi-sponsored charities with financial links to Al Qaeda, as well as the role of a Saudi citizen living in San Diego at the time of the attacks, Omar al-Bayoumi, who had ties to two of the hijackers and to Saudi officials, Mr. Graham said in his affidavit "I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks. ment might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks. Unanswered questions

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=1

Is the truth about Saudi Arabia being a terrorist state finally going to be told?

Well-Obama isn't going to do it. One of his first acts in office was to literally and disgracefully prostrate himself before the Saudi Arabian king with his infamous bow. Democrats attacked Bush for holding hands with the terrorist leader the terrorist leader the terrorist leader King Abdullah-the Obama bows down before him. Obama's reaction to radical Islam overall has been very weak and tepid. If we had a real leader in a president-he would list Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism. "But Obama killed Bin Ladin" they say! Obama's reaction to radical Islam overall has been very weak and tepid. If we had a real leader in a president-he wouild list Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism. ing Abdullah-then Obama bows down before him. Obama's reaction to radical Islam overall has been very weak and tepid. If we had a real leader in a president-he wouild list Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism. ing Abdullah-then Obama bows down before him. Obama's reaction to radical Islam overall has been very weak and tepid. If we had a real leader in a president-he wouild list Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism. ing Abdullah-then Obama bows down before him. Obama's reaction to radical Islam overall has been very weak and tepid. If we had a real leader in a president-he wouild list Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

I will give him credit for that-but you have to look at the big picture. His weakness is emboldening Iran and Syria. I lived in Syria. His weakness is encouraging the regime there (which is controlled by Iran) to massacre thousands. Also, you have to go against the ideology of terror. Bin Ladin was just one man-a very influential man-but we need to discredit and delegitimize radical Islam-something that Clinton, Bush and now Obama won't do. u have to go against the ideology of terror. Bin Laden was just one man-a very influential man-but we need to discredit and delegitimatize radical islam-something that Clinton, Bush and now Obama won't do.

I think that Bin Ladin should not have been killed-and it was a kill mission. He should have been arrested, stood trial and then have been executed for his crimes against humanity. He was probably killed to protect the Saudis-since Bin Ladin was clearly a Saudi agent. Didn't the Iraq war do more to de-stabilize the Middle East and encourage terrorism than anything Obama has ever done? No. After the surge we brought considerable stability to Iraq. I know-I was there both before and after the surge. He has squandered the stability we bought with our blood with his premature withdrawal. 911 and the Iraq War have little to do with the rise of radical Islam. I have been to the Middle East many times since 1991-watching violence against Coptic and Aramaic Christians and a growing threat the world chose to ignore and still ignores-while the genocide against Middle Eastern Christians continues.

I was in Iraq-helping people-and showing the Iraqis great kindness-in both of my deployments. I think it is disgraceful that democrats undermined the war effort so that they could influence the coming elections-disregarding what was best for national security and the stability of the region and for the people of Iraq. All the lies and distortions and hateful propaganda in movies-coming from people who are cowards and don't have the guts to serve. Most "Middle Eastern Studies" departments are Saudi financed and the "experts" put out the Saudi line. Most insurgeants were non-Iraqi or working for Saudis and Syrians. These dictators didn't want a functional democracy in their backyard-otherwise you would have what we have now in Syria-a pro-democracy movement. People say a lot of crap-but I have lived in the Middle East and talked to the common people-they respect America for its democratic traditions-and MANY,MANY Arabs have said to me what they admire most about America is term limits and they want free and fair elections and term limits in their own countries-but the experts say Arabs don't want democracy-well-they are fighting and dying for it right now-while Obama turns his back on them and a blind eye to the Iranians and Syrian regime wiping out thousands-and Obama refused to give the Iranian people our moral support in 2009 and let a possible revolution fail.

Obama Negotiates not only with terrorists-but with the very terrorists who carried out the 911 attacks

Romney, who has won the first two Republican contests in the race to pick a nominee to face Democratic President Barack Obama in November, strongly rejected any sort of talks with the Taliban."The right course for America is not to negotiate with the Taliban while the Taliban are killing our soldiers," Romney said during a debate of the five Republican presidential hopefuls ahead of Saturday's South Carolina primary. "The right course is to recognize that they are the enemy of the United States." Romney said Obama had put the United States in a position of "extraordinary weakness" because he had made a decision based on a political calendar on when to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and because he has even publicly announced the date when the United States would completely withdraw from the country. "We don't negotiate from a position of weakness as we are pulling our troops out," Romney said. "We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban."

Obama says-"Yes, I have brought radical Islamist regimes into power in Libya and Egypt and yes, I am giving Iraq to Iran, and I am letting Iran massacre innocent thousands in Syria and I am allowing Iran to become a nuclear power and yes, I am giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban who orchestrated the 911 attacks, and yes I have demonstrated American weakness to the world and shown the world that America will not stand beside her allies by pulling all the troops from Iraq and yes, I have apologised to terrorists who murdered American heroes in Afghanistan because Korans that had terrorist messages written into them were accidently destroyed-BUT I KILLED BIN LADIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" It is called satire. The point is Obama policy is advancing radical Islam and endangering America-but you try to discuss these serious issues with an Obama-zombie they say-"he killed Bin Labin." Under Obama the world has become a much more dangerous place. Let us also add-that he has done nothing to speak out in the defense of Assyrian and Coptic Christians BUT he apologizes because Korans that terrorists were using to pass messages to each other were destroyed. When Bibles were burned in Afghanistan by the US Army-less-God forbid-Muslims read them-no apology. Imagine what would happen if Afghans got those Bibles-why they might have learned about Christianity and Judaism-they might have been exposed to different points of view and become more educated and perhaps learned about others and become more open minded and tolerant. So. Liberals are relieved that those Bibles were burned-I am still waiting for the apology from the White House. Liberals often compare conservatives to Nazis-but who celebrates book burning? By the way-I am very offended that the US Army forced Army chaplains to burn copies of the Bible in Afghanistan. It was an act of sacrilege. Look, I read the Koran-we need inter-faith communication. Muslims need to learn about other religions too and gain tolerance.

Other issues to be concerned about: The United States government paid 5 million dollars to the Egyptian government who was holding several American aide workers as hostages. This is an outrage. Also, Google has changed its privacy rules-meaning peoples private information isn't private anymore. At the same time the UN is trying to take over the internet. (The obscure branch of the U.N. at issue is the International Telecommunication Union, whose 193 member states include the U.S. and which was convening this week in Geneva. The ostensible purpose of the conference is to seek consensus for an updating of the last set of international telecom regulations, known as ITRs, which were issued in 1988. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/27/un-agency-seeks-to-quell-fears-over-its-plans-for-internet/#ixzz1o1YUyvKe ) That is very dangerous. My main fear is that they would silence any criticism of Islam or anything that portrays or could portray Islam in a negative light-such as news of Christians being persecuted in Africa in Islamic countries, in the Middle East and other Islamic regions. Another thing to be concerned about is the UN's "Agenda 21" program-which is designed for the UN to take over the world. The UN openly discusses this sinister plot on their website saying, "Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment." http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/. The plot was organized in 1992. A UN report released last month called "21 Issues for the 21st Century" has sounded the alarm for those who don't appreciate a group of non-elected official telling countries how to behave. The report comes after 2 years of research conducted by 22 core scientists. The Rio+20 United Nations Conference in June on Sustainable Development in Brazil is expected to highlight the report. The report calls for a complete re-do on how the world's food and water is created and distributed, they say in order to save us from ourselves. An article from FoxNews.com drops a quote from author Chris Horner (his book–Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed):
UN to propose planetary regulations of water, food The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process report, titled "21 Issues for the 21st Century," suggests global regulations of food and water to deal with impending shortages and threats. (UNEP) An environmental report issued by an agency of the United Nations last month has some critics sounding the alarm, saying it is a clarion call for "global governance" over how the Earth is managed. The report, "21 Issues for the 21st Century," from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process, is the culmination of a two-year deliberative process involving 22 core scientists. It is expected to receive considerable attention in the run-up to the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Rio, Brazil, in June. The scientists who wrote the report say it focuses on identifying emerging issues in the global environment, and that it is not about mandating solutions. But its critics see an agenda lurking in its 60 pages, which call for a complete overhaul of how the world's food and water are created and distributed -- something the report says is "urgently needed" for the human race to keep feeding and hydrating itself safely. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/01/un-to-propose-planetary-regulations-water-food/#ixzz1o1arrqao