@@thomastessier4529 you really believe that? You put your confidence into something without proof or merit. What has god done for mankind? Created stories that may or not happened. Put ideas so illusionist that can’t be real. Using words like faith and grace to explain their illusions and dreams and visions as if real. I have read the Bible’s and teachings but the more I read the more I realize the church don’t want you to know the real truth. And most religious people are in a cult with no brains because they are brainwashed into believing that everything they read out of their holy books is true.
There is a Passage in the Bible that states that there won't be anything left of the Temple standing on the ground. All of this was slightly underground so it doesn't count. So, that means according to the Bible itself, The Wailing is not now and never was part of the Temple to start with. Signed-Richard.
Brother I love your video's and I would like to donate to your channel , unfornately our family doesn't have a lot of money . I was wondering if it would be a slap in the face if I only sent 5 dollars ? Thank you for these awesome video's you make ....
Thank you for your beautifully made videos with well developed graphical illustrations. The graphics help a lot to visualize the locations of the various features of the ancient city.
Your videos have always been informative, interesting, and in my opinion award winning, but this world a lot of people are not interested in this and would ridicule you and me for trying to get people unbelievers on the side of god.
i can't believe this kind of thing is happening in my life time , its beyond amazing , its an unfathomable serenity ,,,phew ,,,praise be to the mighty god through our lord jesus christ ...
The Jews don’t believe in Jesus . Never understood how Christians support Jews who did not believe in Jesus and called Mary names . While Muslims love Jesus and are waiting for him to come back …just never made sense to me .
@@alhimyari11 Jesus was a Jew and all the first Christians were Jews. Jews are the chosen people and when they turn to Christ then He will return. I never understood why Muslims follow a “prophet” who raped a 9yr old girl.
@@CCiPencil i do , that’s why we’re waiting for him to come back . What doesn’t make sense is Christians loving Jews who tried to kill Jesus and call Mary names . Muslims do not do that .
The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1,2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building. The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City! Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple. The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David. The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city? Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)
Very interesting points. There is to much subtle assumption going on so far in his explanation. So far he hasn’t mentioned Josephus, Eleazar Ben Jair the Commander of Masada nor does he quote Jesus correctly as you mentioned. Jesus was referring to “the buildings of the Temple”. When our narrator mentioned the additions built by Herod and I see references to the Temple complex what else could Jesus have been referring to but the Temple Complex. Did you look into his mention of the threshing floor? That peaked my interest. I’ll have to watch the rest. As far as being dismissive of the fact that the Romans could have destroyed the large stones from the complex because they didn’t care about them seems a bit ignorant. How does one read Roman history and not know how driven they were to exterminate their opponents without hesitation, with patience precision and with their at the time indomitable willingness to complete the task. Just look at Carthage. With patience and determination those stones would have exploded I believe given enough fuel and time. Another reason why inferring that the Romans would not have cared is ridiculous is its strategic location between Egypt and Anatolia and between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Sea. Cesar saw this and allied with Israel. Even if many Romans hated Jews they had to care about it as a strategic asset. Also making subtle assumptions that any alternative presentation on this topic will affect anyone who entertains the alternative as somehow possibly a threat is harmful in itself and very disingenuous. If we have the right spirit when searching for truth we will find it. We must rid ourselves of fear, pride, ignorance and presumption when seeking for truth. I appreciate your very meticulous approach in response to the presentation. Done like a true student of the Word would do it without resorting to insults, dismissal, boasting or opinions based on the traditions of man.
Zechariah 12:10 ► And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
@@richardlong3745 Yeah Flavious Josephus a guy who was actually witness to the entire fall of Jerusalem, and actually walked in the Temple what the hell did He know? I'm sure His description of Jerusalem and the Temple was way off with his goofy theories right? Jesus said that not one stone of the temple would remain on another, He must have been completely wrong too with His crazy theories also right? No we will chose to listen to people who guestimate where it was base on traditions and conjecture instead of eye witness accounts and who were not even around at the time till almost 2000 years later. It sickens me to see Christians encouraging and supporting the antichrist Israel to build an abomination to GOD like a third Temple. Good job Christians, you are certainly doing your part encouraging Israel to do wicked deeds that will piss GOD off even more instead of warning them not to do and to accept Jesus as their one and only sacrifice instead. C I Scofield did his damage to the church indeed. Taking the simple truth of the scriptures and twisting it to fit the pro Zionist view instead. No wonder why GOD is so pissed at the backsliding Christian Church.
I enjoyed this video very much! I live in the next town from Carmel Indiana, and immediately recognized the picture of the Carmel water tower used as an object lesson at 34:04. It was jarring to see that local landmark on the top of the temple mount in one of your awesome videos! 😂 For a time I thought the theory of the temple being in the City of David was correct. I'm glad you've taken the time to more thoroughly show Jerusalem and its history in all of your wonderful work. I watch and rewatch them -- it has give me such a richness in my biblical studies. Thank you.
Well if there was an aqua duct to feed the Temple Mount and it looks like there was then it can be a likely place. Also the mickvas around the higher elevation would make sense then. However there are others who described the temple. The Gihon Spring is the only spring within the city limits of Jerusalem. We have the eyewitness account of a person from Egypt named Aristeas who viewed the Temple in about 285 B.C.E. He stated quite categorically that the Temple was located over an inexhaustible spring that welled up within the interior part of the Temple. About 400 years later the Roman historian Tacitus gave another reference that the Temple at Jerusalem had within its precincts a natural spring of water that issued from its interior. These two references are describing the Gihon Spring (the sole spring of water in Jerusalem). It was because of the strategic location of this single spring that the original Canaanite cities of "Migdol Edar" and "Jebus" were built over and around that water source before the time of King David. The Gihon Spring is located even today at the base of what was called the "Ophel" (a swelling of the earth in the form of a small mountain dome) once situated just to the north and abutting to "Mount Zion" (the City of David). So close was the Ophel Mound to the City of David that David began to fill in the area between the two summits with dirt and stones (calling it the Millo or "fill in") to make a single high level area on which to build his city and later the Temple. If the temple were fed by an aqueduct I would think the 2 references would not call it a natural spring. Interestingly, we also have a geographical designation in the Scriptures that confirms the centrality of the Temple on the southeast ridge. In Second Kings 23:13 it mentions a spot on the southern flank (or extended spur) of the Mount of Olives that was directly to the east of the Jerusalem that existed at that time. The text states: "The high places that were before Jerusalem [that is, east of Jerusalem], which were on the right hand on the Hill of Corruption [on the southern right hand spur of the Mount of Olives]." Since the highest point of the Mount of Olives is directly east of the Dome of the Rock (which is about 1000 feet north of the Gihon Spring), this statement in Scripture refers to an area much further south that was directly east of the Jerusalem of that time. This region was on the right hand side of the Mount of Olives at a summit of the southern spur of Olivet. It was a separate and lower ridge called the Hill of Corruption. This again reveals that the Temple (being in the center of Jerusalem) was directly west of the Hill of Corruption (about 1000 feet south of the central and highest summit of the Mount of Olives and consequently it was also about 1000 feet south of the Dome of the Rock). The present Haram esh-Sharif where the Dome of the Rock now exists IN NO WAY can be considered to be in the center of Jerusalem. In the Jerusalem of Herod and Jesus, the Haram was about 36 acres of land located in the northeast part - one of the most northerly areas in Jerusalem. In the time of Solomon and later this northeast area would have been a lop-sided extension to the Southeast ridge. But the Temple was in the center of Jerusalem, not in the extreme north. You can read more from www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinE01.html The fact is Titus used the fort that was not destroyed and he describes the 37 huge cisterns they had. During the revolt Rome needed much more than a cohort to put down the revolt. Eleazar also described the fort being pristine and Jerusalem’s city utterly destroyed. There are other references in the Bible that describe the temple in the midst of Jerusalem which the northern part of the where the mount is does not describe. So while I like his argument it still does not account for many things. Further recent excavation in the city of David support it for the temple location. IE places here the animals were kept etc. just my 0.02. I say there is not enough data yet to support either but I lean towards the city of David. And no I have never heard of the 2 people he described supporting a city of David location and I would need a lot more evidence for either position
@@SeanGlazier - Interesting. At least for now I'm inclined to think that the temple as built by Solomon was built on what we now call the Temple mount. That opinion is based on this video and several other videos I have watched, but certainly I'm no expert. And I'm also inclined to think that we're about ten years away from the return of Jesus, in which case I'll just ask him or any of the Jews believers who lived from 10-30 A.D. I'm fascinated by all the history and archeology, but I'm fine with whatever turns out to be the real location. Thanks for the extra info!
Thank you for your compelling information my wife and myself have been in Jerusalem once but not enough time with God blessing I would like to visit again and maybe with a little more time. I watched both sides of the evidence and I pray whomever is right to built the 3rd temple will please God and not the end of times otherwise it is a waste of time and money,shalom.
You are so amazing, interesting😇 and intelligent with your proofs...I love your videos and have been telling people about them. You are so important to God in your work. I believe you will be so blessed by Him. You are bringing the bible alive for many people who long to visit the sacred land.Thank you.
The opening image of the Temple Mount & Kidron is so good, I can't wait to see the rest! FANTASTIC JOB!!!! Thank you so much for all the work you put into the models, it really helps us on the other side of the planet to figure out the topography and layout and sheer SIZE of the 1st Century Temple Mount compound.
Thank you for making such a comprehensive video that addressed the specific arguments made for the alternative site. I'm one of the folks who advocated for the alternative site theory who commented on your prior videos, and this video has convinced me that the alternative site theory is mistaken. I've changed my mind. I held on to the alternative site theory because of the remarks of Tacitus and Aristeas, which I don't remember your prior videos addressing, but this video addressed those remarks and gave a better explanation than the Gihon spring being the "inexhaustible" source of water that was noted by these ancient witnesses. This video leaves no unanswered questions, at least for me.
Very informative brother in the BODY of JESUS CHRIST. We as Royal heirs around the world shall be looking up for our redemption draws nigh. We are looking for the NEW Yerusalem, New Heaven and Earth. Revelation chapter 21 and 22. 🕊️👑👰🤴👸😇🌿 Keep safe for we are Sojourners in this world. Maranatha! Even so come LORD JESUS CHRIST AND COME QUICKLY.
When Mose was Powered up by God at the burning bush. The Bible says he never shut off. Never abated. So he is still up on the mountain he body still shoots out light..Jesus was given a scroll he was Powered then. Mose face was so bright they covered it up. Jesus had a beam..never shut off.beings of Light do not shut off..
Each Chosen one Powers up. They transform..they do not die like you are viewing it. Both did the 40 day Fast that turn,s them on..even after they claim Jesus died. They saw a being of Light
I enjoy all of your programs. I will say every time I look at the renditions of the city of David. It’s amazing how much it looks like the temple mound in Egypt The Tell El-Yehudiye, which means the mound of the Jews, or hill of the Jews, there is a higher flat region, and then this teardrop looking city very reminiscent of that teardrop looking hilltop of the city of David and of course, this was built by the Hebrews, In the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (180-145 BC) “a temple, modelled after that of Jerusalem” was founded by the exiled Jewish priest Onias IV. The Hebrew colony, which was attracted by the establishment of their national worship at Leontopolis, and which was increased by the refugees from the oppressions of the Seleucid kings in Judea, flourished there for more than three centuries afterwards. After the outbreak of the Jewish War, the Leontopolite temple was closed in the first century CE, amid the general backlash against Judaism
The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1, 2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building. The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City! Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple. The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David. The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city? Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)
In Pilates letter to Ceasar, about his dealings with Jesus.. Pilate CLEARLY states that he was worried about a revolt, because he only had ONE Centurion and 100 Soldiers at his command, to quash any revolt. He begged Ceasar for at least 10 times that in that report... He was fully stationed and operated from Fort Antonia.
And if you are stupid enough to believe that the Roman Empire was dumb enough to leave only 100 soldiers and 1 Centurion to deal with the constant revolts that occurred in the land of Judea than I can't help you and you prove your ignorance of history to believe such nonsense.
A century never had 100 soldiers. 80 was standard with ten sections of eight legionnaires. This is smaller than the average modern military company size.
Amazing explanation! If I haden't seen this I would have continued to believe the theory about the temple in the city of David, but putting both explanations side to side, I agree with yours. Thank you for what you are doing to educate us.
Have a look at the video of Sergio & Rhonda visiting on the Temple Mount either in 2021 or 2022. Where the Temple stood was a small opening. There was a building there made from cedar. The beams exposed were to be carbon dated. I heard the date on the cedar beam dated back to the time of Solomon. A tile was also removed and dated.
Everything is interesting. It gives me a better perspective of Christianity when you understand a little bit about the Jewish history, culture. and the times of the day ,from the beginning to the return. HAMILTON ONTARIO CANADA
thank you for your comment. I am glad you enjoyed this video. Thank you so much for your support. Please tell me a bit about yourself. You can write me an email: izraelmojachwala@gmail.com
What an amazing video! I absolutely love this. So much historical information so much archaeological information. You are so very informative and I appreciate all the effort you put into this. I love the little men armies!
Very much enjoy the work you always put into your presentations, not to prove a predetermined perspective, but to discover what must be true. While I have gone back and forth in my understanding as evidence was presented, I always found the prophetically closed Mercy Gate a strong argument for the Temple location. Your presentation adds more strong arguments. Thank you.
Absolutely fascinating!! I never miss an episode from your channel. I get my Bible out and follow along, pause and read the verses that go along with Gods word. I may never visit Israel but my Bible and your videos make me feel I am along on this journey. Blessings to you.
The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1, 2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building. The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City! Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple. The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David. The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city? Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)
Thank you for this video. You have worked very hard on every detail and point. It is amazing to watch it, and see just where everything truly is, how it looks today and how that fits in with the word. I love your channel and your work, I am always looking forward to your next video. Thank you so much.
And how did the Priests continually wash in flowing water up there? Where is the 600 ft (two football fields) long walkway from the fort to the temple? The western wall simply cannot be standing if it was the Temple Mount.
Thank you for your explanation(s). Everything is simple. You're a great teacher and source of information. GOD'S BLESSINGS TO ALL OF YOU FOR THIS WORK.
thank you for your comment. I am glad you enjoyed this video. Thank you so much for your support. Please tell me a bit about yourself. You can write me an email: izraelmojachwala@gmail.com
The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1, 2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building. The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City! Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple. The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David. The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city? Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)
The way you explain the Temple, I believe you! I guess I wanted it to be in the city of David because it would make it easier to build the Third Temple. I now have to go back to trusting our Lord to make a way, to give them the space to build the Third Temple!❤️ I Believe! GOD can do that!
God is trustable beyond anything ever and always. Will there not be on abomination of desolation standing in the Holy place? What is there now? Aks in prayer, read to scriptures , test ask if there even will be a third temple.... just test anything and everything. He will come as a thief in the night.
I only have one question, what about the eyewitness Josephus who lived during the times of Yeshua? He lays out the exact location of both the temple and the Roman citadel. He even mentions the large stone where the citadel is located. It's hard to ignore an eyewitness. Josephus said that there was basically a small city to house the Roman army. Cisterns would have been necessary to support a huge Roman army who lived there. What about the Roman theatre that was found under the temple mount?
Flavius Josephus was a Jewish traitor for the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus. He and his other buddies wrote the New Testament using the original Torah prophecy to invent the Christian Jesus. Read Caesar’s Messiah.
Absolutely awesome, I found you fascinating to listen to, your descriptions are so clear, and you compare the erroneous views and explain the differences so we can understand and follow you, Bless you for your hard work ❤
Isaac had no idea what they were going to the site for. It's not like Abraham told him "Let's go to the mountain so I can kill you.". Isaac even asked where the lamb for the sacrifice was and Abraham told him that God would provide the sacrifice. Isaac was basically tricked into following his dad to the altar but he trusted his dad and had no previous reason to believe his dad would hurt him. The impressive part is that Abraham, being more aged than Isaac, was able to physically bind him and place him on the altar. It doesn't say but I believe that Abraham would have knocked Isaac unconscious to bind him and place him on the altar. I can't picture Abraham struggling to tie up his son with Isaac wriggling, fighting and screaming. It doesn't say for sure but I doubt that Isaac just went along with it once they were there and Abraham tried to put him on the altar.
@@thebigshow6102 and you know this how? It never says whether there was or was not a struggle and Isaac isn't heard from again in the story until his parents are dead and he is looking for a bride. It doesn't really say what happened but I doubt that Isaac was ok with it and just gave in and laid there, otherwise why would Abraham have to bind him? Why would Abraham have hid the purpose of their journey if he knew Isaac had faith enough to go along with it? Logically one can conclude that there was some sort of resistance from Isaac otherwise, like I said, he wouldn't need to be mislead on the way and wouldn't need to be bound when they got there.
@@ichitoburrito1359 agreed, he did not know. But he had faith in God that he would be alright. That is what faith is. He was not a child without understanding. I have boys 18, 21, and 38. They know an earthly death is not the end.
Solomon was a very wise man, who God gave him his wisdom, so that he would have known very well how to use gravity to supply the necessary water for the daily priestly needs, as well as knowledge to store great quantities of water in large cisterns for the annual feasts.
Don't forget, Josephus (1st century historian who was there) stated..... you couldn't see the Temple from the North as the Fort Antonio covered it. So the Temple had to be south of the Temple Mount. And North of King Davids Palace. The Bible also states in 1 Kings, the poles of the Ark are still where the seat of God was, and still there to this day. So why aren't they looking for the gold covered poles that carried the Ark in the Olphal?
@allangibson8494 not if they were hidden. I believe Ron Wyatt found them, reported to the Jewish authorities and they recovered them. Which is why they already have plans for the new temple.
2 Samuel 28/18-20 Location of The Threshing Floor is right there in the Scripture: David Offers Sacrifices.18 On the same day God went to David and said to him, “Go and set up an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.”19 According to God’s word, David went up as the LORD had commanded.20 Now Araunah looked down and saw the king and his servants coming toward him while he was threshing wheat. This clearly has The Threshing Floor higher than The City of David, from where it is assumed that David would be coming. “Going up” could be ambiguous, a possibly meaningless phrase such as in someone “going up to meet” someone else. However, the next sentence makes it clear that it meant literally “up higher” - because Araunah is described as “looking down”. And “while he was threshing wheat” will dispel any argument that the location of this event was somewhere else.
Cisterns on temple mount in the hasmonean fortress were for storage... if the temple had on demand water, then the water would be higher than where it was needed... otherwise you need porters to draw and carry the water where needed
Absolutely amazing presentation! Once again you have made a marvelous video. I read one of the books defending the City of David location and was convinced it was very possible. But, after watching your detailed description of all things needed for the Temple to function, I trust your insight much more. I had never thought about the physical necessities Solomon had to use for the sacrifices of the opening ceremony described in scripture. Those animal deaths were sobering enough. The work to accomplish them is staggering. I come away from your work in awe of how incredible the Temple was and also its serious example of blood sacrifice for sin.
''AND SOLOMON COMMENCED TO BUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LRD IN JERUSALEM ON MOUNT MORIAH" Divrei Hayamim II - II Chronicles - Chapter 3: 1And Solomon commenced to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where He had appeared to his father David, which he had prepared in David's place, in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. אוַיָּ֣חֶל שְׁלֹמֹ֗ה לִבְנ֚וֹת אֶת־בֵּֽית־יְהֹוָה֙ בִּירֽוּשָׁלִַ֔ם בְּהַר֙ הַמּ֣וֹרִיָּ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִרְאָ֖ה לְדָוִ֣יד אָבִ֑יהוּ אֲשֶׁ֚ר הֵכִין֙ בִּמְק֣וֹם דָּוִ֔יד בְּגֹ֖רֶן אָרְנָ֥ן הַיְבוּסִֽי:
Don't worry, God will put it right where it is supposed to be.
@@thomastessier4529 you really believe that? You put your confidence into something without proof or merit. What has god done for mankind? Created stories that may or not happened. Put ideas so illusionist that can’t be real. Using words like faith and grace to explain their illusions and dreams and visions as if real. I have read the Bible’s and teachings but the more I read the more I realize the church don’t want you to know the real truth. And most religious people are in a cult with no brains because they are brainwashed into believing that everything they read out of their holy books is true.
There is a Passage in the Bible that states that there won't be anything left of the Temple standing on the ground. All of this was slightly underground so it doesn't count. So, that means according to the Bible itself, The Wailing is not now and never was part of the Temple to start with. Signed-Richard.
PLEASE GIVE A LIKE TO THIS VIDEO, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE WAITING FOR THE PREMIERE; THIS HELPS ME A LOT, THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND SEE YOU ON SUNDAY!
Thanks. I pushed the Like button. You are a star.
Brother I love your video's and I would like to donate to your channel , unfornately our family doesn't have a lot of money . I was wondering if it would be a slap in the face if I only sent 5 dollars ? Thank you for these awesome video's you make ....
Thank you for your beautifully made videos with well developed graphical illustrations. The graphics help a lot to visualize the locations of the various features of the ancient city.
Your videos have always been informative, interesting, and in my opinion award winning, but this world a lot of people are not interested in this and would ridicule you and me for trying to get people unbelievers on the side of god.
Simply fabulous‼️🇮🇱
Especially glad you illuminated Solomon's aquaduct system and water mechanics. Very good, factual study. Bravo! "Massive amounts of water".
When was aqueducts built,
i can't believe this kind of thing is happening in my life time , its beyond amazing , its an unfathomable serenity ,,,phew ,,,praise be to the mighty god through our lord jesus christ ...
I think this too, we are blessed. Israel is a nation since 1948, and we see so much happening because of TV and now internet.
The Jews don’t believe in Jesus . Never understood how Christians support Jews who did not believe in Jesus and called Mary names . While Muslims love Jesus and are waiting for him to come back …just never made sense to me .
@@alhimyari11 Jesus was a Jew and all the first Christians were Jews. Jews are the chosen people and when they turn to Christ then He will return. I never understood why Muslims follow a “prophet” who raped a 9yr old girl.
@@alhimyari11 if you loved Him then you would follow Him and not the devil
@@CCiPencil i do , that’s why we’re waiting for him to come back . What doesn’t make sense is Christians loving Jews who tried to kill Jesus and call Mary names . Muslims do not do that .
Wow. I listened and learned. Thank you. Very well done.
Great to hear!
You have changed my mind and I repent. Very good video!
Awesome! Thank you!
The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1,2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building.
The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)?
Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11).
There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City!
Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple.
The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David.
The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city?
Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)
Very interesting points. There is to much subtle assumption going on so far in his explanation. So far he hasn’t mentioned Josephus, Eleazar Ben Jair the Commander of Masada nor does he quote Jesus correctly as you mentioned. Jesus was referring to “the buildings of the Temple”. When our narrator mentioned the additions built by Herod and I see references to the Temple complex what else could Jesus have been referring to but the Temple Complex.
Did you look into his mention of the threshing floor? That peaked my interest. I’ll have to watch the rest.
As far as being dismissive of the fact that the Romans could have destroyed the large stones from the complex because they didn’t care about them seems a bit ignorant. How does one read Roman history and not know how driven they were to exterminate their opponents without hesitation, with patience precision and with their at the time indomitable willingness to complete the task. Just look at Carthage. With patience and determination those stones would have exploded I believe given enough fuel and time.
Another reason why inferring that the Romans would not have cared is ridiculous is its strategic location between Egypt and Anatolia and between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Sea. Cesar saw this and allied with Israel. Even if many Romans hated Jews they had to care about it as a strategic asset.
Also making subtle assumptions that any alternative presentation on this topic will affect anyone who entertains the alternative as somehow possibly a threat is harmful in itself and very disingenuous.
If we have the right spirit when searching for truth we will find it. We must rid ourselves of fear, pride, ignorance and presumption when seeking for truth.
I appreciate your very meticulous approach in response to the presentation. Done like a true student of the Word would do it without resorting to insults, dismissal, boasting or opinions based on the traditions of man.
This is either one of the best or Th Best Chanel for information about Israel. Thank you!
Zechariah 12:10 ►
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Thanks!
Wonderful presentation clarifying that we need to be very cautious of being swayed by people using wordplay for their own preferred personal theories.
@@richardlong3745 Yeah Flavious Josephus a guy who was actually witness to the entire fall of Jerusalem, and actually walked in the Temple what the hell did He know? I'm sure His description of Jerusalem and the Temple was way off with his goofy theories right? Jesus said that not one stone of the temple would remain on another, He must have been completely wrong too with His crazy theories also
right? No we will chose to listen to people who guestimate where it was base on traditions and conjecture instead of eye witness accounts and who were not even around at the time till almost 2000 years later. It sickens me to see Christians encouraging and supporting the antichrist Israel to build an abomination to GOD like a third Temple. Good job Christians, you are certainly doing your part encouraging Israel to do wicked deeds that will piss GOD off even more instead of warning them not to do and to accept Jesus as their one and only sacrifice instead. C I Scofield did his damage to the church indeed. Taking the simple truth of the scriptures and twisting it to fit the pro Zionist view instead. No wonder why GOD is so pissed at the backsliding Christian Church.
GOD Bless you always ... Shalom!
You have definitely put my questions as to the location of the original temple to rest. Thank you for all the hard work. God bless.
So which side are you on? Where is the location of the temple once and for all?
I'm so thankful for this well researched, evidence-based and logical presentation, really well done.
I enjoyed this video very much! I live in the next town from Carmel Indiana, and immediately recognized the picture of the Carmel water tower used as an object lesson at 34:04. It was jarring to see that local landmark on the top of the temple mount in one of your awesome videos! 😂 For a time I thought the theory of the temple being in the City of David was correct. I'm glad you've taken the time to more thoroughly show Jerusalem and its history in all of your wonderful work. I watch and rewatch them -- it has give me such a richness in my biblical studies. Thank you.
Martin had me believing his theory for years! Thank you for setting me straight! You are a God-send and a gift brother.
They're both wrong! Read Norma robertson.
You have gathered a wide range of compelling information into this video. Thanks for doing this!
Glad it was helpful!
You mean spreading misinformation.
The true Temple is in the city of David, where Gihon Spring is. This video should clarify it.
ua-cam.com/video/oKTO8YYs29c/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
Well if there was an aqua duct to feed the Temple Mount and it looks like there was then it can be a likely place. Also the mickvas around the higher elevation would make sense then. However there are others who described the temple.
The Gihon Spring is the only spring within the city limits of Jerusalem. We have the eyewitness account of a person from Egypt named Aristeas who viewed the Temple in about 285 B.C.E. He stated quite categorically that the Temple was located over an inexhaustible spring that welled up within the interior part of the Temple. About 400 years later the Roman historian Tacitus gave another reference that the Temple at Jerusalem had within its precincts a natural spring of water that issued from its interior. These two references are describing the Gihon Spring (the sole spring of water in Jerusalem). It was because of the strategic location of this single spring that the original Canaanite cities of "Migdol Edar" and "Jebus" were built over and around that water source before the time of King David. The Gihon Spring is located even today at the base of what was called the "Ophel" (a swelling of the earth in the form of a small mountain dome) once situated just to the north and abutting to "Mount Zion" (the City of David). So close was the Ophel Mound to the City of David that David began to fill in the area between the two summits with dirt and stones (calling it the Millo or "fill in") to make a single high level area on which to build his city and later the Temple. If the temple were fed by an aqueduct I would think the 2 references would not call it a natural spring.
Interestingly, we also have a geographical designation in the Scriptures that confirms the centrality of the Temple on the southeast ridge. In Second Kings 23:13 it mentions a spot on the southern flank (or extended spur) of the Mount of Olives that was directly to the east of the Jerusalem that existed at that time. The text states: "The high places that were before Jerusalem [that is, east of Jerusalem], which were on the right hand on the Hill of Corruption [on the southern right hand spur of the Mount of Olives]." Since the highest point of the Mount of Olives is directly east of the Dome of the Rock (which is about 1000 feet north of the Gihon Spring), this statement in Scripture refers to an area much further south that was directly east of the Jerusalem of that time.
This region was on the right hand side of the Mount of Olives at a summit of the southern spur of Olivet. It was a separate and lower ridge called the Hill of Corruption. This again reveals that the Temple (being in the center of Jerusalem) was directly west of the Hill of Corruption (about 1000 feet south of the central and highest summit of the Mount of Olives and consequently it was also about 1000 feet south of the Dome of the Rock). The present Haram esh-Sharif where the Dome of the Rock now exists IN NO WAY can be considered to be in the center of Jerusalem. In the Jerusalem of Herod and Jesus, the Haram was about 36 acres of land located in the northeast part - one of the most northerly areas in Jerusalem. In the time of Solomon and later this northeast area would have been a lop-sided extension to the Southeast ridge. But the Temple was in the center of Jerusalem, not in the extreme north.
You can read more from www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinE01.html
The fact is Titus used the fort that was not destroyed and he describes the 37 huge cisterns they had. During the revolt Rome needed much more than a cohort to put down the revolt. Eleazar also described the fort being pristine and Jerusalem’s city utterly destroyed. There are other references in the Bible that describe the temple in the midst of Jerusalem which the northern part of the where the mount is does not describe. So while I like his argument it still does not account for many things. Further recent excavation in the city of David support it for the temple location. IE places here the animals were kept etc. just my 0.02. I say there is not enough data yet to support either but I lean towards the city of David. And no I have never heard of the 2 people he described supporting a city of David location and I would need a lot more evidence for either position
@@SeanGlazier - Interesting.
At least for now I'm inclined to think that the temple as built by Solomon was built on what we now call the Temple mount. That opinion is based on this video and several other videos I have watched, but certainly I'm no expert.
And I'm also inclined to think that we're about ten years away from the return of Jesus, in which case I'll just ask him or any of the Jews believers who lived from 10-30 A.D. I'm fascinated by all the history and archeology, but I'm fine with whatever turns out to be the real location.
Thanks for the extra info!
Thank you for your compelling information my wife and myself have been in Jerusalem once but not enough time with God blessing I would like to visit again and maybe with a little more time. I watched both sides of the evidence and I pray whomever is right to built the 3rd temple will please God and not the end of times otherwise it is a waste of time and money,shalom.
You are so amazing, interesting😇 and intelligent with your proofs...I love your videos and have been telling people about them. You are so important to God in your work. I believe you will be so blessed by Him. You are bringing the bible alive for many people who long to visit the sacred land.Thank you.
Wow, thank you
thank you for the education you provide
The opening image of the Temple Mount & Kidron is so good, I can't wait to see the rest! FANTASTIC JOB!!!! Thank you so much for all the work you put into the models, it really helps us on the other side of the planet to figure out the topography and layout and sheer SIZE of the 1st Century Temple Mount compound.
The evidence is flawed. The so-called temple mount is not where the temples were located.
I am glad to see you are back. I have missed you. I love listening to you. I have learned so much. You are awesome.
WOW! That explains alot now where the Temple will be. Awesome video.
Thank you for making such a comprehensive video that addressed the specific arguments made for the alternative site. I'm one of the folks who advocated for the alternative site theory who commented on your prior videos, and this video has convinced me that the alternative site theory is mistaken. I've changed my mind. I held on to the alternative site theory because of the remarks of Tacitus and Aristeas, which I don't remember your prior videos addressing, but this video addressed those remarks and gave a better explanation than the Gihon spring being the "inexhaustible" source of water that was noted by these ancient witnesses. This video leaves no unanswered questions, at least for me.
Definitely will watch this later with my wonderful wife.
She has done a lot of study on this subject.
Thank you for this video!
God bless!
Wonderful!
Your beautiful music brought me to tears
Very informative brother in the BODY of JESUS CHRIST.
We as Royal heirs around the world shall be looking up for our redemption draws nigh. We are looking for the NEW Yerusalem, New Heaven and Earth.
Revelation chapter 21 and 22.
🕊️👑👰🤴👸😇🌿 Keep safe for we are Sojourners in this world.
Maranatha! Even so come LORD JESUS CHRIST AND COME QUICKLY.
Very interesting video. Well presented, packed with information , well done.
Fascinating. Thank you. Extremely informational.
🤍✝️🙏🇮🇱🤍Thank you. I totally heed to your illustrations and informative biblical history. 💯👍
Beautiful educational video! May God bless us all! Praise God and Jesus!
I'm thankful to watch the skillful rendering. May you be blessed.
I will say, you are extremely thoughtful and well thought out, highly researched and presenting much logic and reason.
When Mose was Powered up by God at the burning bush. The Bible says he never shut off. Never abated. So he is still up on the mountain he body still shoots out light..Jesus was given a scroll he was Powered then. Mose face was so bright they covered it up. Jesus had a beam..never shut off.beings of Light do not shut off..
Each Chosen one Powers up. They transform..they do not die like you are viewing it. Both did the 40 day Fast that turn,s them on..even after they claim Jesus died. They saw a being of Light
I enjoy all of your programs. I will say every time I look at the renditions of the city of David. It’s amazing how much it looks like the temple mound in Egypt The Tell El-Yehudiye, which means the mound of the Jews, or hill of the Jews, there is a higher flat region, and then this teardrop looking city very reminiscent of that teardrop looking hilltop of the city of David and of course, this was built by the Hebrews, In the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (180-145 BC) “a temple, modelled after that of Jerusalem” was founded by the exiled Jewish priest Onias IV. The Hebrew colony, which was attracted by the establishment of their national worship at Leontopolis, and which was increased by the refugees from the oppressions of the Seleucid kings in Judea, flourished there for more than three centuries afterwards. After the outbreak of the Jewish War, the Leontopolite temple was closed in the first century CE, amid the general backlash against Judaism
Thank you, for your in depth analysis…..
Glad it was helpful!
Amazing work as usual. Love the long videos. Even if there are topics I already seen, I must watch it thoroughly. Thank you very much 🙏🏾
Well done! It's unfortunate, but it needed to be said again. Clear and succinct. Thank you!
You're very welcome
The video is a thorough explanation for why the Temple was located on the Temple Mount. Well done.
Good job kid and thanks for your time.
This is a very thorough explanation refuting the temple being in the City of David. Thank you very much.
The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1, 2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building.
The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)?
Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11).
There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City!
Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple.
The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David.
The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city?
Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)
In Pilates letter to Ceasar, about his dealings with Jesus.. Pilate CLEARLY states that he was worried about a revolt, because he only had ONE Centurion and 100 Soldiers at his command, to quash any revolt. He begged Ceasar for at least 10 times that in that report... He was fully stationed and operated from Fort Antonia.
And if you are stupid enough to believe that the Roman Empire was dumb enough to leave only 100 soldiers and 1 Centurion to deal with the constant revolts that occurred in the land of Judea than I can't help you and you prove your ignorance of history to believe such nonsense.
So the smaller Antonia Fortress would have been enough to house the 101 soldiers..
A century never had 100 soldiers. 80 was standard with ten sections of eight legionnaires.
This is smaller than the average modern military company size.
I learned a lot about the water system . You are very thorough! I appreciate you!!
Very helpful. Thank you!
Amazing explanation! If I haden't seen this I would have continued to believe the theory about the temple in the city of David, but putting both explanations side to side, I agree with yours. Thank you for what you are doing to educate us.
I love videos of Israel, I have never been there so Thank You for Sharing
Hey stone's it is in AZ. ❤😂 ALTO ,CAPESH, STOP IN THE DESERT WE HANGING AROUND WATER RD.😮
Have a look at the video of Sergio & Rhonda visiting on the Temple Mount either in 2021 or 2022. Where the Temple stood was a small opening. There was a building there made from cedar. The beams exposed were to be carbon dated. I heard the date on the cedar beam dated back to the time of Solomon. A tile was also removed and dated.
Everything is interesting. It gives me a better perspective of Christianity when you understand a little bit about the Jewish history, culture.
and the times of the day ,from the beginning to the return.
HAMILTON ONTARIO CANADA
Awesome as always! Let the peace, comfort and blessings of GOD [of all Creation] abound to you and your family Sir! Shalom! Shalom!
thank you for your comment. I am glad you enjoyed this video. Thank you so much for your support. Please tell me a bit about yourself. You can write me an email: izraelmojachwala@gmail.com
An awesome video to watch especially the Roman legion living there from Casearan to Jerusalem!
Brilliant as always ❤️🏴
I believe you because of the thickets and the boss stones
Well done. Clear and informative. Thank you for doing all of this work. Great visual references!
very nice again..thanks..that really makes me visit Jerusalem one time
What an amazing video! I absolutely love this. So much historical information so much archaeological information. You are so very informative and I appreciate all the effort you put into this. I love the little men armies!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very much enjoy the work you always put into your presentations, not to prove a predetermined perspective, but to discover what must be true. While I have gone back and forth in my understanding as evidence was presented, I always found the prophetically closed Mercy Gate a strong argument for the Temple location. Your presentation adds more strong arguments. Thank you.
Absolutely fascinating!! I never miss an episode from your channel. I get my Bible out and follow along, pause and read the verses that go along with Gods word. I may never visit Israel but my Bible and your videos make me feel I am along on this journey. Blessings to you.
Nice Video with illustrations and graphics. So nicely made and explained. Very Good. God Bless you.
Excellent information, good luck from 🇵🇰🌹
This was something I have been curious about, thank you for the video
The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1, 2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building.
The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)?
Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11).
There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City!
Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple.
The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David.
The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city?
Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)
Thank you for this video. You have worked very hard on every detail and point. It is amazing to watch it, and see just where everything truly is, how it looks today and how that fits in with the word. I love your channel and your work, I am always looking forward to your next video. Thank you so much.
And how did the Priests continually wash in flowing water up there? Where is the 600 ft (two football fields) long walkway from the fort to the temple? The western wall simply cannot be standing if it was the Temple Mount.
Thank you, I understand, Some people twist things to suit their teachings, The Third Temple will also be built on the Temple Mound, ( Mount Moria)
Thank you for all your work - Amazing!
Many thanks!
Very much worth hearing this explanation, very well presented. Thank you.
You're very welcome!
Thank you for your explanation(s). Everything is simple. You're a great teacher and source of information. GOD'S BLESSINGS TO ALL OF YOU FOR THIS WORK.
thank you for your comment. I am glad you enjoyed this video. Thank you so much for your support. Please tell me a bit about yourself. You can write me an email: izraelmojachwala@gmail.com
Wonderful expiation. Very well done !!!!!!!!!!!!
Wonderful and very convincing explanation ! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1, 2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building.
The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)?
Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11).
There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City!
Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple.
The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David.
The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city?
Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)
The way you explain the Temple, I believe you!
I guess I wanted it to be in the city of David because it would make it easier to build the Third Temple.
I now have to go back to trusting our Lord to make a way, to give them the space to build the Third Temple!❤️
I Believe! GOD can do that!
God is trustable beyond anything ever and always. Will there not be on abomination of desolation standing in the Holy place? What is there now? Aks in prayer, read to scriptures , test ask if there even will be a third temple.... just test anything and everything. He will come as a thief in the night.
2.000 years from now you going to nail it down
Keep dreaming &looking
LOVE your work and love what you are teaching us all here, THANK YOU!
Thank you. I too considered CofD to be the site of the Temple. But you've convinced me that it is indeed on the Temple Mount. Great work.
I only have one question, what about the eyewitness Josephus who lived during the times of Yeshua? He lays out the exact location of both the temple and the Roman citadel. He even mentions the large stone where the citadel is located. It's hard to ignore an eyewitness. Josephus said that there was basically a small city to house the Roman army. Cisterns would have been necessary to support a huge Roman army who lived there. What about the Roman theatre that was found under the temple mount?
43:25
Flavius Josephus was a Jewish traitor for the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus. He and his other buddies wrote the New Testament using the original Torah prophecy to invent the Christian Jesus. Read Caesar’s Messiah.
I enjoyed the information shared about the Jerusalem Temple Mount and the facts regarding what you researched. Thank you for this. Enjoyed it!
Absolutely awesome, I found you fascinating to listen to, your descriptions are so clear, and you compare the erroneous views and explain the differences so we can understand and follow you, Bless you for your hard work ❤
Very well done. In depth and satisfying.
Love this video!! You do an amazing job!!! Thank you for sharing and God bless you!💙🇮🇱💙
Thank you! You too!
Very good video an explanation of the truth
The wailing wall is the Roman fortress. The temple was lower than the fort in elevation, the Romans ran down to rescue Paul who was at the temple.
you pulled this from your ass. Leave the Jewish history for the devoted Jews.
Great piece of work ! Enjoyed this information Thank you
What a comprehensive and well done documentary.🙏✝️ Thank you and God bless you.💟🙏
Thank you kindly!
Ty love history of bible
Wonderful video!!
Thank you very much!
You are so very intelligent with such excellent research. Always a pleasure to be educated by a dedicated and purposeful historian. Thank you.
I’m always amazed at the fact that Isaac went to the site without a fight especially being put on the altar his faith in God and his father
iSSAC WAS NOT A LITTLE BOY at that time, he probably had more faith than the two of us.
Isaac had no idea what they were going to the site for. It's not like Abraham told him "Let's go to the mountain so I can kill you.". Isaac even asked where the lamb for the sacrifice was and Abraham told him that God would provide the sacrifice. Isaac was basically tricked into following his dad to the altar but he trusted his dad and had no previous reason to believe his dad would hurt him. The impressive part is that Abraham, being more aged than Isaac, was able to physically bind him and place him on the altar. It doesn't say but I believe that Abraham would have knocked Isaac unconscious to bind him and place him on the altar. I can't picture Abraham struggling to tie up his son with Isaac wriggling, fighting and screaming. It doesn't say for sure but I doubt that Isaac just went along with it once they were there and Abraham tried to put him on the altar.
@@ichitoburrito1359 you invent a struggle where there is no struggle.
@@thebigshow6102 and you know this how? It never says whether there was or was not a struggle and Isaac isn't heard from again in the story until his parents are dead and he is looking for a bride. It doesn't really say what happened but I doubt that Isaac was ok with it and just gave in and laid there, otherwise why would Abraham have to bind him? Why would Abraham have hid the purpose of their journey if he knew Isaac had faith enough to go along with it? Logically one can conclude that there was some sort of resistance from Isaac otherwise, like I said, he wouldn't need to be mislead on the way and wouldn't need to be bound when they got there.
@@ichitoburrito1359 agreed, he did not know. But he had faith in God that he would be alright. That is what faith is. He was not a child without understanding. I have boys 18, 21, and 38. They know an earthly death is not the end.
Wonderful explanation, thank you! You’re extremely knowledgeable and create great value. ✨🎁
So well done!
Please do a video on the bridge that crosses the Kidron valley from the East gate to the mount of olives.
Solomon was a very wise man, who God gave him his wisdom, so that he would have known very well how to use gravity to supply the necessary water for the daily priestly needs, as well as knowledge to store great quantities of water in large cisterns for the annual feasts.
We are taught that aqueducts are Roman only. It stands to reason that Solomon would do it first.
A very well researched video. Well presented too, Thank you.
Todah Raba !Tanks so much for all those greats researchs you made and for partaking them so generously with us.Yah bless you and your team 🙏
Same to you!
Thank you very much. I have seen others who attempt to explain this issue. This has been the best I have seen so far. Much respect.
The shops along the way were interesting
Don't forget, Josephus (1st century historian who was there) stated..... you couldn't see the Temple from the North as the Fort Antonio covered it. So the Temple had to be south of the Temple Mount. And North of King Davids Palace.
The Bible also states in 1 Kings, the poles of the Ark are still where the seat of God was, and still there to this day.
So why aren't they looking for the gold covered poles that carried the Ark in the Olphal?
That just implies that the Antonine Fortress was taller than the temple - like a block of flats (insulae).
@allangibson8494 not if they were hidden. I believe Ron Wyatt found them, reported to the Jewish authorities and they recovered them. Which is why they already have plans for the new temple.
You are well-researched. Excellent job! God bless you. May Lord Yeshua bless you.
2 Samuel 28/18-20 Location of The Threshing Floor is right there in the Scripture:
David Offers Sacrifices.18 On the same day God went to David and said to him, “Go and set up an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.”19 According to God’s word, David went up as the LORD had commanded.20 Now Araunah looked down and saw the king and his servants coming toward him while he was threshing wheat.
This clearly has The Threshing Floor higher than The City of David, from where it is assumed that David would be coming. “Going up” could be ambiguous, a possibly meaningless phrase such as in someone “going up to meet” someone else. However, the next sentence makes it clear that it meant literally “up higher” - because Araunah is described as “looking down”. And “while he was threshing wheat” will dispel any argument that the location of this event was somewhere else.
Love ALL your videos my brother!!
Shalom from Chicago Suburb Wheaton!!!!
I love your videos I learned so much of the history of temple monk that I never knew thank you can't wait for the next one
Cisterns on temple mount in the hasmonean fortress were for storage... if the temple had on demand water, then the water would be higher than where it was needed... otherwise you need porters to draw and carry the water where needed
Great video as always!
great video! very thorough and well presented. ty
Absolutely amazing presentation! Once again you have made a marvelous video. I read one of the books defending the City of David location and was convinced it was very possible. But, after watching your detailed description of all things needed for the Temple to function, I trust your insight much more. I had never thought about the physical necessities Solomon had to use for the sacrifices of the opening ceremony described in scripture. Those animal deaths were sobering enough. The work to accomplish them is staggering. I come away from your work in awe of how incredible the Temple was and also its serious example of blood sacrifice for sin.
''AND SOLOMON COMMENCED TO BUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LRD IN JERUSALEM ON MOUNT MORIAH"
Divrei Hayamim II - II Chronicles - Chapter 3:
1And Solomon commenced to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where He had appeared to his father David, which he had prepared in David's place, in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. אוַיָּ֣חֶל שְׁלֹמֹ֗ה לִבְנ֚וֹת אֶת־בֵּֽית־יְהֹוָה֙ בִּירֽוּשָׁלִַ֔ם בְּהַר֙ הַמּ֣וֹרִיָּ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִרְאָ֖ה לְדָוִ֣יד אָבִ֑יהוּ אֲשֶׁ֚ר הֵכִין֙ בִּמְק֣וֹם דָּוִ֔יד בְּגֹ֖רֶן אָרְנָ֥ן הַיְבוּסִֽי: