Absolutely absurd. As a Roman historian buff, it is utterly ridiculous to think that a tiny little section of ground like that would be used to house a Roman Legion! Good grief, open your eyes people! Quit believing things told to you simply because its tradition. The Jews that came back to Jerusalem hadn't been there for nearly a thousand years; and they MISTAKENLY thought that the Fort Antonia grounds were the location of the Temple - NOT TRUE!. The "Temple Mount" aka Fort Antonia, is the only logical place for the Legion (5500 to 6500 men!) to have been housed - which is the SAME FOOTPRINT of every other Roman fort at the time! If people would just listen to reason, the next Temple could be built TOMORROW in the City of David! The heck with the Dome of the Rock! Let them have the Roman grounds!!
Fort Antonia was supposed to fit an entire Legion of Roman Centurions..... This small area of the Temple Mount would not have been sufficient to fit a legion at all. The entire Area of the Temple mount was ALL fort Antonia and according to scripture the Temple was in the City of David and it was not built on the highest ground.
Thank you for your comments. Scripture does not say that the Antonia Fortress had to hold an entire legion of soldiers so the Antonia Fortress could easily have been where it was. Also, regarding the Temple being in the City of David, Scripture says just opposite. At the dedication of the Temple by Solomon in 2 Chronicles 5, Scripture says the Ark was brought, "out of the City of David to the Temple, "Then Solomon assembled to Jerusalem the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion." If the Ark was brought out of the City of David to the Temple, then the Temple couldn't have been in the City of David.
HolyLandSite do you consider the testimony of Josephus historical writings accurate? Then you might want to actually read what he wrote since he was actually alive when the romans burned down the second temple. And Micah tells us the temple had no more foundation at all as the land under the temple was to be plowed into farm fields. Micah 3:11-12
Thanks for your comment. Micah 3:12 says, "Therefore, on account of you Zion will be plowed as a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins, And the mountain of the temple will become high places of a forest." This verse does not say that the Temple Mount area will be plowed, but that the area of Zion would be plowed. It says the mountain of the temple would have trees upon it. That is exactly what it has today upon it. All around the Temple Mount, there are many trees. So, I don't see a problem with why the Temple couldn't be where I believe it is located today.
And you cant Fit a legion of roman soldiers in the current area considered as the fort,,,,,,which he described as having the higher ground...What other higher ground is there than the temple mount
Thanks for giving us such rich insight that brings us closer to what Christ did for us 😢. I did not know anything about the Antonia Tower (Spanish) until I read a footnote on John 19:13. ❤
The truth about Fort Antonia is found below in the writings of a first century eyewitness, and from the pages of the Bible. The following comes from Wars of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section 8. “8. Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein he demonstrated his natural magnanimity. In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament, and that any one who would either try to get up or to go down it might not be able to hold his feet upon it. Next to this, and before you come to the edifice of the tower itself, there was a wall three cubits high; but within that wall all the space of the tower of Antonia itself was built upon, to the height of forty cubits. The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence it seemed a palace. And as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations; for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; and in that tower were the guards of those three (14). There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod’s palace; but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower Antonia, as we have already told you; and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered the sight of the temple on the north. And this shall suffice at present to have spoken about the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to myself to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere.” Where are the "broad spaces for camps" in the modern model of Fort Antonia? The Jewish historian Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, on the highest hill, and had passages that went “down” to the temple. Josephus described it as a large structure, instead of what we find in Avi Yonah’s modern model of the fort. Josephus also said the fort blocked the view of the temple on the north side. Therefore, we know it was higher than the temple. In the passage below we find the Romans used Fort Antonia as the base to attack the temple during 70 AD. They had previously gained access to the fort by attacking the foundation for seven days. (Book 6, Chapter 2, Section 7) The passage proves at least part of Fort Antonia remained intact on the day the Jewish temple was destroyed. From War of the Jews, by Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 4, sections 4-5. "4. Now it is true that on this day the Jews were so weary, and under such consternation, that they refrained from any attacks. But on the next day they gathered their whole force together, and ran upon those that guarded the outward court of the temple very boldly, through the east gate, and this about the second hour of the day. These guards received that their attack with great bravery, and by covering themselves with their shields before, as if it were with a wall, they drew their squadron close together; yet was it evident that they could not abide there very long, but would be overborne by the multitude of those that sallied out upon them, and by the heat of their passion. However, Caesar seeing, from the tower of Antonia, that this squadron was likely to give way, he sent some chosen horsemen to support them. Hereupon the Jews found themselves not able to sustain their onset, and upon the slaughter of those in the forefront, many of the rest were put to flight. But as the Romans were going off, the Jews turned upon them, and fought them; and as those Romans came back upon them, they retreated again, until about the fifth hour of the day they were overborne, and shut themselves up in the inner [court of the] temple. 5. So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus’s retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it." All of this provides tremendous evidence that the Dome of the Rock is the true location of Fort Antonia. Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, and that rock is still there today under a dome. If Fort Antonia remained on the day the temple was destroyed, please tell us the location of Fort Antonia today? Where was Solomon anointed as King of Israel, and what is special about its water? 1Ki_1:33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon: 1Ki_1:38 So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule, and brought him to Gihon. 1Ki_1:45 And Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon: and they are come up from thence rejoicing, so that the city rang again. This is the noise that ye have heard. Where is the "castle" described below, from which 470 soldiers were sent to guard only one man? Act_21:34 And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle. Act_21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Act_22:24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. Act_23:10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. (Why did the soldiers go “down” to rescue Paul, and why did he speak to the crowd at the temple from the steps ?) Act_23:16 And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul. Act 23:23 And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; Act_23:32 On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle: to go with him, and returned to the castle: During 73 AD the Jewish leader at Masada said the only thing left of Jerusalem was that which belonged to the Romans. Why would the Romans destroy their own fort, which was named for a Roman?
Pilate did not condemn Jesus. Pilate tried to reason with the Jews, to set him free. Remember Pilates wife, had a terrible dream about it. Pilate wanted to free Jesus.
Watch the UA-cam video... The "Temple Mount" is Roman Fort Antonia, by Leeland Jones, to see the truth with your own eyes. If 470 Roman soldiers were sent from the fort, just to escort the Apostle Paul, how many soldiers were in the whole fort? (Acts 23:23) .
Thank you for your comments. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Herod the Great enlarged the temple mount and built the new temple over the existing one. This evidence is irrefutable. Also, regarding the Temple being in the City of David, Scripture says that at the dedication of the Temple that Solomon built, in 2 Chronicles 5, that the Ark of the covenant was brought, "out of the City of David to the Temple, "Then Solomon assembled to Jerusalem the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion." If the Ark was brought out of the City of David to the Temple, then the Temple couldn't have been in the City of David.
@@HolyLandSite In the following from "Wars of the Jews", by Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 5, Sect. 8, we have a description of Fort Antonia. It was built upon a gigantic rock, on the highest hill, and had passages that lead "down" to the temple. Also notice what Josephus described as being in the fort, which included "courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps", "having all the conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities". It was large enough to block the sight of the temple on the north side. What building in Jerusalem today is built upon a gigantic rock? "8. Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein he demonstrated his natural magnanimity. In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament, and that any one who would either try to get up or to go down it might not be able to hold his feet upon it. Next to this, and before you come to the edifice of the tower itself, there was a wall three cubits high; but within that wall all the space of the tower of Antonia itself was built upon, to the height of forty cubits. The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence it seemed a palace. And as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations; for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; and in that tower were the guards of those three (14). There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod’s palace; but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower Antonia, as we have already told you; and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered the sight of the temple on the north. And this shall suffice at present to have spoken about the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to myself to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere." .
That was a great video I learned something new today I didn't know that the fortress of antonia was turned into a school or that a school was actually later on built on that site
. Pilot found no fault in Him & washed his hands of Him. Sanhedrin condemned Him; Pilot bowed to their wishes.He was murdered in the Scarlet Woman great Harlot Babylon; Jerusalem as will be Jesus's witnesses.............Shalom...Israel.
God has an amazing story...from Adam to Abraham...2k years, from Abraham to Jesus 2k years, Grace period is 2k years and the last 1k years will be the Millienial Kingdom reign by Christ. 7k years total, just like the bible says...a day to the Lord is 1k years...truly amazing.
Jesus said in Luke 19:44 "And shall lay thee even with the ground." ...... "and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another". He was referring to the city of Jerusalem being completely leveled. Including the temple. Read it again! No city, No temple. Completely destroyed. These are the words of Jesus.
Solomon's temple was above the city of david in a place called Ophir which is below that huge Antonian fortress, they had to house 6000 Roman soldiers plus about another 4000 slaves that were support staff and horses, armament, facilities, etc ... not gonna fit in that tiny Herod's palace ... look at this video for the truth: ua-cam.com/video/dkhDUiw32WM/v-deo.html ... they have also uncovered other Roman legion quarters in other parts of the mediterranean and they are the same dimensions as that fake so called temple mount, 25 acres to be exact
Thank you for your comments. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Herod the Great enlarged the temple mount and built the new temple over the existing one. This evidence is irrefutable. Also, regarding the Temple being in the City of David, Scripture says that at the dedication of the Temple that Solomon built, in 2 Chronicles 5, that the Ark of the covenant was brought, "out of the City of David to the Temple, "Then Solomon assembled to Jerusalem the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion." If the Ark was brought out of the City of David to the Temple, then the Temple couldn't have been in the City of David. While this documentary sounds convincing, it’s not accurate according to Scripture, archaeology, and the historical record. The contributing historians in this video repeatedly claim that the temple was in the City of David. This is not what Scripture supports, in fact, it claims just the opposite to be true. Scripture clearly states that at the dedication of the temple that Solomon built, in 2 Chronicles 5, that the Ark of the covenant was brought, "out of the City of David” to the temple, "Then Solomon assembled to Jerusalem the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the City of David, which is Zion" (2 Chronicles 5:2). If the Ark was brought out of the City of David to the temple, then the temple couldn't have been in the City of David. So, as God says through His Word, and God certainly knows everything, the temple was not in the City of David as God says it was brought OUT OF THE CITY OF DAVID. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Herod the Great enlarged the temple mount and built the new temple over the existing one. This evidence is irrefutable. Also, there's just no place for a temple the size Herod the Great built, along with the massive Temple Mount Platform he enlarged in the City of David. It is just too small, and no evidence has been found for the temple there. I believe the original temple lied just north of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. This place lines up perfectly with the Eastern Gate (of which has been discovered). The contributing historians take the writings of Josephus and make them say what they want. For example, they speak of the temple being destroyed and not one stone would be left upon another to show that the Western Wall couldn’t be part of the retaining wall of the Temple Mount Platform. While the temple was certainly torn down completely, the Western Wall was never part of the temple but was just part of the Temple Mount platform. Jesus spoke about the temple being completely torn down, not the walls of the city or the Temple Mount platform. Additionally, the Antonia Fortress could certainly have been larger than the model in the Israel Museum, but that doesn’t mean the whole Temple Mount platform had to be the Antonia Fortress. This video takes the words of the description of Josephus too far in my opinion. In closing, the strongest argument that the temple was not in the City of David comes from God Himself. Scripture clearly says Solomon took the Ark out of the City of David to the temple. I could go into more detail, but this is my humble opinion on the matter.
Generally good and uplifting shame about the images from the roman catholic film passion of the Christ, theyre Gospel deniers. That film has had an unfortunate influence on a lot of the church
وَقَوۡلِهِمۡ إِنَّا قَتَلۡنَا ٱلۡمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ٱبۡنَ مَرۡيَمَ رَسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمۡۚ وَإِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱخۡتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكّٖ مِّنۡهُۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِۦ مِنۡ عِلۡمٍ إِلَّا ٱتِّبَاعَ ٱلظَّنِّۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينَۢا (Muhammad Junagarhi) اور یوں کہنے کے باعﺚ کہ ہم نے اللہ کے رسول مسیح عیسیٰ بن مریم کو قتل کر دیا حاﻻنکہ نہ تو انہوں نے اسے قتل کیا نہ سولی پر چڑھایا بلکہ ان کے لئے ان (عیسیٰ) کا شبیہ بنا دیا گیا تھا۔ یقین جانو کہ حضرت عیسیٰ (علیہ السلام) کے بارے میں اختلاف کرنے والے ان کے بارے میں شک میں ہیں، انہیں اس کا کوئی یقین نہیں بجز تخمینی باتوں پر عمل کرنے کے اتنا یقینی ہے کہ انہوں نے انہیں قتل نہیں کیا۔ (ابوالاعلی مودودی) اور خود کہا کہ ہم نے مسیح، عیسٰی ابن ِ مریم، رسول اللہ کو قتل کر دیا ہے۔۔۔۔ حالانکہ فی الواقع انہوں نے نہ اس کو قتل کیا نہ صلیب پر چڑھایا بلکہ معاملہ ان کے لیے مشتبہ کر دیا گیا۔ اور جن لوگوں نے اس کے بارے میں اختلاف کیا ہے وہ بھی دراصل شک میں مبتلا ہیں ، ان کے پاس اس معاملہ میں کوئی علم نہیں ہے، محض گمان ہی کی پیروی ہے۔ انہوں نے مسیح کو یقین کے ساتھ قتل نہیں کیا (Mohammed Marmaduke William Pickthall) And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. (Кулиев) и сказали: «Воистину, мы убили Мессию Ису (Иисуса), сына Марьям (Марии), посланника Аллаха». Однако они не убили его и не распяли, а это только показалось им. Те, которые препираются по этому поводу, пребывают в сомнении и ничего не ведают об этом, а лишь следуют предположениям. Они действительно не убивали его (или не убивали его с уверенностью). (Mufti Taqi Usmani) and for their saying, “We have certainly killed the MasīH ‘Īsā the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah”, while in fact they did neither kill him, nor crucify him, but they were deluded by resemblance.Those who disputed in this matter are certainly in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it, but they follow whims. It is absolutely certain that they did not kill him, -Surah An-Nisa', Ayah 157 قُلۡ مَنۢ بِيَدِهِۦ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيۡءٖ وَهُوَ يُجِيرُ وَلَا يُجَارُ عَلَيۡهِ إِن كُنتُمۡ تَعۡلَمُونَ (Muhammad Junagarhi) پوچھیئے کہ تمام چیزوں کا اختیار کس کے ہاتھ میں ہے؟ جو پناه دیتا ہے اور جس کے مقابلے میں کوئی پناه نہیں دیا جاتا، اگر تم جانتے ہو تو بتلا دو؟ (ابوالاعلی مودودی) اِن سے کہو، بتاوٴ اگر تم جانتے ہو کہ ہر چیز پر اقتدار کس کا ہے؟ اور کون ہے جو پناہ دیتا ہے اور اُس کے مقابلے میں کوئی پناہ نہیں دے سکتا؟ (Mohammed Marmaduke William Pickthall) Say: In Whose hand is the dominion over all things and He protecteth, while against Him there is no protection, if ye have knowledge? (Кулиев) Скажи: «В чьей Руке власть над всякой вещью? Кто защищает, и от Кого нет защиты, если только вы знаете?». (Mufti Taqi Usmani) Say, “Who is the One in whose hand lies the kingdom of every thing and who gives protection, and no protection can be given against him, if you have knowledge?” -Surah Al-Mu'minun, Ayah 88
Absolutely absurd. As a Roman historian buff, it is utterly ridiculous to think that a tiny little section of ground like that would be used to house a Roman Legion! Good grief, open your eyes people! Quit believing things told to you simply because its tradition. The Jews that came back to Jerusalem hadn't been there for nearly a thousand years; and they MISTAKENLY thought that the Fort Antonia grounds were the location of the Temple - NOT TRUE!. The "Temple Mount" aka Fort Antonia, is the only logical place for the Legion (5500 to 6500 men!) to have been housed - which is the SAME FOOTPRINT of every other Roman fort at the time! If people would just listen to reason, the next Temple could be built TOMORROW in the City of David! The heck with the Dome of the Rock! Let them have the Roman grounds!!
read the book by Prof Martin
I never realised these places still existed. Thank you for bringing these to life.
Fort Antonia was supposed to fit an entire Legion of Roman Centurions..... This small area of the Temple Mount would not have been sufficient to fit a legion at all. The entire Area of the Temple mount was ALL fort Antonia and according to scripture the Temple was in the City of David and it was not built on the highest ground.
Thank you for your comments. Scripture does not say that the Antonia Fortress had to hold an entire legion of soldiers so the Antonia Fortress could easily have been where it was. Also, regarding the Temple being in the City of David, Scripture says just opposite. At the dedication of the Temple by Solomon in 2 Chronicles 5, Scripture says the Ark was brought, "out of the City of David to the Temple, "Then Solomon assembled to Jerusalem the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion." If the Ark was brought out of the City of David to the Temple, then the Temple couldn't have been in the City of David.
HolyLandSite do you consider the testimony of Josephus historical writings accurate? Then you might want to actually read what he wrote since he was actually alive when the romans burned down the second temple. And Micah tells us the temple had no more foundation at all as the land under the temple was to be plowed into farm fields. Micah 3:11-12
Thanks for your comment. Micah 3:12 says, "Therefore, on account of you Zion will be plowed as a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins, And the mountain of the temple will become high places of a forest." This verse does not say that the Temple Mount area will be plowed, but that the area of Zion would be plowed. It says the mountain of the temple would have trees upon it. That is exactly what it has today upon it. All around the Temple Mount, there are many trees. So, I don't see a problem with why the Temple couldn't be where I believe it is located today.
And Josephus? All he saw was Fort Antonia from the direction he was looking from as described in his historical account.
And you cant Fit a legion of roman soldiers in the current area considered as the fort,,,,,,which he described as having the higher ground...What other higher ground is there than the temple mount
Thanks for uploading this
Thanks for giving us such rich insight that brings us closer to what Christ did for us 😢. I did not know anything about the Antonia Tower (Spanish) until I read a footnote on John 19:13. ❤
This is an amazing presentation. We get to learn about Christ and think about the Roman empire at the same time.
excellent presentation
Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching and sharing. God bless.
It was named after Herod's friend Marcus Antonius Mark Anthony as he is known in modern times
The truth about Fort Antonia is found below in the writings of a first century eyewitness, and from the pages of the Bible.
The following comes from Wars of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section 8.
“8. Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein he demonstrated his natural magnanimity. In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament, and that any one who would either try to get up or to go down it might not be able to hold his feet upon it. Next to this, and before you come to the edifice of the tower itself, there was a wall three cubits high; but within that wall all the space of the tower of Antonia itself was built upon, to the height of forty cubits. The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence it seemed a palace. And as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations; for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; and in that tower were the guards of those three (14). There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod’s palace; but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower Antonia, as we have already told you; and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered the sight of the temple on the north. And this shall suffice at present to have spoken about the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to myself to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere.”
Where are the "broad spaces for camps" in the modern model of Fort Antonia?
The Jewish historian Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, on the highest hill, and had passages that went “down” to the temple.
Josephus described it as a large structure, instead of what we find in Avi Yonah’s modern model of the fort.
Josephus also said the fort blocked the view of the temple on the north side. Therefore, we know it was higher than the temple.
In the passage below we find the Romans used Fort Antonia as the base to attack the temple during 70 AD.
They had previously gained access to the fort by attacking the foundation for seven days.
(Book 6, Chapter 2, Section 7)
The passage proves at least part of Fort Antonia remained intact on the day the Jewish temple was destroyed.
From War of the Jews, by Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 4, sections 4-5.
"4. Now it is true that on this day the Jews were so weary, and under such consternation, that they refrained from any attacks. But on the next day they gathered their whole force together, and ran upon those that guarded the outward court of the temple very boldly, through the east gate, and this about the second hour of the day. These guards received that their attack with great bravery, and by covering themselves with their shields before, as if it were with a wall, they drew their squadron close together; yet was it evident that they could not abide there very long, but would be overborne by the multitude of those that sallied out upon them, and by the heat of their passion. However, Caesar seeing, from the tower of Antonia, that this squadron was likely to give way, he sent some chosen horsemen to support them. Hereupon the Jews found themselves not able to sustain their onset, and upon the slaughter of those in the forefront, many of the rest were put to flight. But as the Romans were going off, the Jews turned upon them, and fought them; and as those Romans came back upon them, they retreated again, until about the fifth hour of the day they were overborne, and shut themselves up in the inner [court of the] temple.
5. So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus’s retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it."
All of this provides tremendous evidence that the Dome of the Rock is the true location of Fort Antonia. Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, and that rock is still there today under a dome.
If Fort Antonia remained on the day the temple was destroyed, please tell us the location of Fort Antonia today?
Where was Solomon anointed as King of Israel, and what is special about its water?
1Ki_1:33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:
1Ki_1:38 So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule, and brought him to Gihon.
1Ki_1:45 And Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon: and they are come up from thence rejoicing, so that the city rang again. This is the noise that ye have heard.
Where is the "castle" described below, from which 470 soldiers were sent to guard only one man?
Act_21:34 And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle.
Act_21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?
Act_22:24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.
Act_23:10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. (Why did the soldiers go “down” to rescue Paul, and why did he speak to the crowd at the temple from the steps ?)
Act_23:16 And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.
Act 23:23 And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night;
Act_23:32 On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle:
to go with him, and returned to the castle:
During 73 AD the Jewish leader at Masada said the only thing left of Jerusalem was that which belonged to the Romans. Why would the Romans destroy their own fort, which was named for a Roman?
Pilate did not condemn Jesus. Pilate tried to reason with the Jews, to set him free. Remember Pilates wife, had a terrible dream about it. Pilate wanted to free Jesus.
true
Pilate had the final say and gave in to the mob and condemned him.
Watch the UA-cam video... The "Temple Mount" is Roman Fort Antonia, by Leeland Jones, to see the truth with your own eyes.
If 470 Roman soldiers were sent from the fort, just to escort the Apostle Paul, how many soldiers were in the whole fort? (Acts 23:23)
.
Thank you for your comments. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Herod the Great enlarged the temple mount and built the new temple over the existing one. This evidence is irrefutable. Also, regarding the Temple being in the City of David, Scripture says that at the dedication of the Temple that Solomon built, in 2 Chronicles 5, that the Ark of the covenant was brought, "out of the City of David to the Temple, "Then Solomon assembled to Jerusalem the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion." If the Ark was brought out of the City of David to the Temple, then the Temple couldn't have been in the City of David.
@@HolyLandSite In the following from "Wars of the Jews", by Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 5, Sect. 8, we have a description of Fort Antonia.
It was built upon a gigantic rock, on the highest hill, and had passages that lead "down" to the temple. Also notice what Josephus described as being in the fort, which included "courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps", "having all the conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities".
It was large enough to block the sight of the temple on the north side.
What building in Jerusalem today is built upon a gigantic rock?
"8. Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein he demonstrated his natural magnanimity. In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament, and that any one who would either try to get up or to go down it might not be able to hold his feet upon it. Next to this, and before you come to the edifice of the tower itself, there was a wall three cubits high; but within that wall all the space of the tower of Antonia itself was built upon, to the height of forty cubits. The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence it seemed a palace. And as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations; for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; and in that tower were the guards of those three (14). There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod’s palace; but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower Antonia, as we have already told you; and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered the sight of the temple on the north. And this shall suffice at present to have spoken about the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to myself to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere."
.
The Antonio Fortress was the stone base currently under the Dome of the Rock, not the little building you're describing.
That was a great video I learned something new today I didn't know that the fortress of antonia was turned into a school or that a school was actually later on built on that site
much of it was misinformation
Amen 🙏
Interesting..
. Pilot found no fault in Him & washed his hands of Him. Sanhedrin condemned Him; Pilot bowed to their wishes.He was murdered in the Scarlet Woman great Harlot Babylon; Jerusalem as will be Jesus's witnesses.............Shalom...Israel.
God has an amazing story...from Adam to Abraham...2k years, from Abraham to Jesus 2k years, Grace period is 2k years and the last 1k years will be the Millienial Kingdom reign by Christ. 7k years total, just like the bible says...a day to the Lord is 1k years...truly amazing.
Great thoughts! Thanks for sharing.
Welcome...love all your vids, feels like I'm walking in Christs footsteps. Thank you
Jesus said in Luke 19:44 "And shall lay thee even with the ground." ...... "and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another". He was referring to the city of Jerusalem being completely leveled. Including the temple. Read it again! No city, No temple. Completely destroyed. These are the words of Jesus.
The truth shall make you free!!!
Interesting
Why is there now 2 locations where Jesus was taken to Pilate? 🤔
This is inorrect
Wrong
Read the book by prof Martin
The truth
Actually it's named after Mark Anthony
Solomon's temple was above the city of david in a place called Ophir which is below that huge Antonian fortress, they had to house 6000 Roman soldiers plus about another 4000 slaves that were support staff and horses, armament, facilities, etc ... not gonna fit in that tiny Herod's palace ... look at this video for the truth: ua-cam.com/video/dkhDUiw32WM/v-deo.html ... they have also uncovered other Roman legion quarters in other parts of the mediterranean and they are the same dimensions as that fake so called temple mount, 25 acres to be exact
Thank you for your comments. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Herod the Great enlarged the temple mount and built the new temple over the existing one. This evidence is irrefutable. Also, regarding the Temple being in the City of David, Scripture says that at the dedication of the Temple that Solomon built, in 2 Chronicles 5, that the Ark of the covenant was brought, "out of the City of David to the Temple, "Then Solomon assembled to Jerusalem the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion." If the Ark was brought out of the City of David to the Temple, then the Temple couldn't have been in the City of David.
While this documentary sounds convincing, it’s not accurate according to Scripture, archaeology, and the historical record. The contributing historians in this video repeatedly claim that the temple was in the City of David. This is not what Scripture supports, in fact, it claims just the opposite to be true. Scripture clearly states that at the dedication of the temple that Solomon built, in 2 Chronicles 5, that the Ark of the covenant was brought, "out of the City of David” to the temple, "Then Solomon assembled to Jerusalem the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the City of David, which is Zion" (2 Chronicles 5:2). If the Ark was brought out of the City of David to the temple, then the temple couldn't have been in the City of David. So, as God says through His Word, and God certainly knows everything, the temple was not in the City of David as God says it was brought OUT OF THE CITY OF DAVID. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Herod the Great enlarged the temple mount and built the new temple over the existing one. This evidence is irrefutable. Also, there's just no place for a temple the size Herod the Great built, along with the massive Temple Mount Platform he enlarged in the City of David. It is just too small, and no evidence has been found for the temple there. I believe the original temple lied just north of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. This place lines up perfectly with the Eastern Gate (of which has been discovered). The contributing historians take the writings of Josephus and make them say what they want. For example, they speak of the temple being destroyed and not one stone would be left upon another to show that the Western Wall couldn’t be part of the retaining wall of the Temple Mount Platform. While the temple was certainly torn down completely, the Western Wall was never part of the temple but was just part of the Temple Mount platform. Jesus spoke about the temple being completely torn down, not the walls of the city or the Temple Mount platform. Additionally, the Antonia Fortress could certainly have been larger than the model in the Israel Museum, but that doesn’t mean the whole Temple Mount platform had to be the Antonia Fortress. This video takes the words of the description of Josephus too far in my opinion.
In closing, the strongest argument that the temple was not in the City of David comes from God Himself. Scripture clearly says Solomon took the Ark out of the City of David to the temple. I could go into more detail, but this is my humble opinion on the matter.
Generally good and uplifting shame about the images from the roman catholic film passion of the Christ, theyre Gospel deniers. That film has had an unfortunate influence on a lot of the church
وَقَوۡلِهِمۡ إِنَّا قَتَلۡنَا ٱلۡمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ٱبۡنَ مَرۡيَمَ رَسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمۡۚ وَإِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱخۡتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكّٖ مِّنۡهُۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِۦ مِنۡ عِلۡمٍ إِلَّا ٱتِّبَاعَ ٱلظَّنِّۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينَۢا
(Muhammad Junagarhi)
اور یوں کہنے کے باعﺚ کہ ہم نے اللہ کے رسول مسیح عیسیٰ بن مریم کو قتل کر دیا حاﻻنکہ نہ تو انہوں نے اسے قتل کیا نہ سولی پر چڑھایا بلکہ ان کے لئے ان (عیسیٰ) کا شبیہ بنا دیا گیا تھا۔ یقین جانو کہ حضرت عیسیٰ (علیہ السلام) کے بارے میں اختلاف کرنے والے ان کے بارے میں شک میں ہیں، انہیں اس کا کوئی یقین نہیں بجز تخمینی باتوں پر عمل کرنے کے اتنا یقینی ہے کہ انہوں نے انہیں قتل نہیں کیا۔
(ابوالاعلی مودودی)
اور خود کہا کہ ہم نے مسیح، عیسٰی ابن ِ مریم، رسول اللہ کو قتل کر دیا ہے۔۔۔۔ حالانکہ فی الواقع انہوں نے نہ اس کو قتل کیا نہ صلیب پر چڑھایا بلکہ معاملہ ان کے لیے مشتبہ کر دیا گیا۔ اور جن لوگوں نے اس کے بارے میں اختلاف کیا ہے وہ بھی دراصل شک میں مبتلا ہیں ، ان کے پاس اس معاملہ میں کوئی علم نہیں ہے، محض گمان ہی کی پیروی ہے۔ انہوں نے مسیح کو یقین کے ساتھ قتل نہیں کیا
(Mohammed Marmaduke William Pickthall)
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
(Кулиев)
и сказали: «Воистину, мы убили Мессию Ису (Иисуса), сына Марьям (Марии), посланника Аллаха». Однако они не убили его и не распяли, а это только показалось им. Те, которые препираются по этому поводу, пребывают в сомнении и ничего не ведают об этом, а лишь следуют предположениям. Они действительно не убивали его (или не убивали его с уверенностью).
(Mufti Taqi Usmani)
and for their saying, “We have certainly killed the MasīH ‘Īsā the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah”, while in fact they did neither kill him, nor crucify him, but they were deluded by resemblance.Those who disputed in this matter are certainly in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it, but they follow whims. It is absolutely certain that they did not kill him,
-Surah An-Nisa', Ayah 157
قُلۡ مَنۢ بِيَدِهِۦ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيۡءٖ وَهُوَ يُجِيرُ وَلَا يُجَارُ عَلَيۡهِ إِن كُنتُمۡ تَعۡلَمُونَ
(Muhammad Junagarhi)
پوچھیئے کہ تمام چیزوں کا اختیار کس کے ہاتھ میں ہے؟ جو پناه دیتا ہے اور جس کے مقابلے میں کوئی پناه نہیں دیا جاتا، اگر تم جانتے ہو تو بتلا دو؟
(ابوالاعلی مودودی)
اِن سے کہو، بتاوٴ اگر تم جانتے ہو کہ ہر چیز پر اقتدار کس کا ہے؟ اور کون ہے جو پناہ دیتا ہے اور اُس کے مقابلے میں کوئی پناہ نہیں دے سکتا؟
(Mohammed Marmaduke William Pickthall)
Say: In Whose hand is the dominion over all things and He protecteth, while against Him there is no protection, if ye have knowledge?
(Кулиев)
Скажи: «В чьей Руке власть над всякой вещью? Кто защищает, и от Кого нет защиты, если только вы знаете?».
(Mufti Taqi Usmani)
Say, “Who is the One in whose hand lies the kingdom of every thing and who gives protection, and no protection can be given against him, if you have knowledge?”
-Surah Al-Mu'minun, Ayah 88