I am a Christian in the USA! I believe the Temple belongs in the City of David. If you educate yourself the Bible makes it very clear. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord.
The opposite is true, the City of David is specifically not where the temple was built. Read 2 Chronicles, it was not in the City of David and was on the threshing floor of the Jebusites on Mt Moriah. Threshing floors are always on flat ground. This isn’t hard to figure out that the Temple Mount itself is the location that makes the most sense. I used to believe the City of David theory but it’s obviously wrong after checking the Bible against the theory. What Cornuke likely found was the Tabernacle location, not the Temple
Dear @Jesus Loves, The Scriptures clearly eliminate the City of David as the location of Solomon's Temple. 2 Chron. 5:2-5 They brought "the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David," The Ark was taken "OUT" of the City of David; To where ? " they brought up the ark, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent; the Levitical priests brought them up." These items were taken "UP" ! If you come out of the City of David, there is only one direction that leads "UP" (all other directions go down) Only by going north can you go "UP". Going north leads "UP" towards the top of Mt. Moriah. This is where Scripture says the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah. "Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORDa had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." (2 Chron. 3:1) Scripture clearly teaches that the Temple Solomon built, was not located in the City of David, but on the Temple Mount, on Mt. Moriah were God wanted it to be. Be Well, DZ
Mount Moriah is where Abraham went and where Solomon built the 1st temple. The temple mount still had the exact dimensions of Solomons temple and the walla now are from Herods expansion.
@@narrowistheway77and you knowingly call Jesus a liar not to mention that you also call Josephus a liar too. Jesus said that NOT ONE STONE WOULD BE STANDING UPON ANOTHER. Stop eating the lies.
Dear @ GBUK101, "Clear from the scriptures ... wasn't on ... the Temple Mount " Really ?? I think Scripture is quite clear that the temple(s) was some where on the present Temple Mount. I would love to see your evidence for such an assertion and .................. where do you think the Temple was built according to Scripture ? Be Well, DZ
Dear@@niktic1895 , Hello !! Thanks for the response. "Jerusalem". Of course I would agree the Temple was built in Jerusalem, that is very clear in Scripture and the Temple Mount is in Jerusalem. "down in the valley". I would not agree that the Temple was built in the Valley. Reasons: 1. The Scriptures clearly tell us the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah. "Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORDa had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." (2 Chron. 3:1) 2. When the Temple construction was finished, the furnishings (Ark Of the Covenant tent of meeting, Holy Vessels, etc.) for the Temple were taken "up" to the Temple on Mt. Moriah. "and the Levites took UP the ark." (2 Chron. 5:4) "And they brought UP the ark, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent; the Levitical priests brought them UP. " (2 Chron. 5:5) "to bring UP the ark of the covenant .... " (I Kings 8:1) "And they brought UP the ark of the LORD, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent; the priests and the Levites brought them UP." (I Kings 8:4) Taking the Temple furnishings "UP" is what we would expect to hear it the Temple was on Mt. Moriah. If the Temple was in the valley they would have been taken "down". 3. The Temple Mount is on top of Mt. Moriah where the Temple was located. We know this because of the clear historical provenance and tradition of the Jewish People, And the very strong archaeological evidence that supports the ancient location of the Temple on the present Temple Mount. "City of David" For those who accept Biblical Authority, the idea that the temple was located in the City of David is eliminated by Scripture. Scripture clearly tell us that when the Temple construction was complete the Temple furnishings were taken "OUT" of the City of David and "UP" to the Temple. Mt. Moriah was a couple thousand feet "UP" hill from the City of David. " .... to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD OUT of the city of David, which is Zion. (2 Chron. 5:2) "..... to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD OUT of the city of David, which is Zion. (I Kings 8:1) The Scriptures clearly tell us these items were taken OUT of the City Of David, to take them to the newly finished Temple on Mt. Moriah. The Temple was clearly NOT in the City of David. The Temple would not have fit in the City of David. You said the Temple was in the City of David, down in the valley. How can that be because the City of David is certainly NOT in the valley. Your assertion is self-contradictory. The Scriptures, the Tradition fo the Jewish People and others, the Provenance of History and the strong Archaeological Evidence are all in agreement that the Temple (both First and second Temples) were built on Mt. Moriah, on the present Temple Mount. I would consider anyone disagreeing with the strong evidence concerning the actual authentic location of the Temple on the present Temple Mount, to be people who either deny the Scriptures, or just unaware of how strong the evidence really is. The Scriptures are pretty clear ! I don't think you can offer any evidence contrary to what the Scriptures tell us. Be Well, DZ
Jesus... you know Jesus... o.k. He said there would be not be one stone will he left upon another.. Soooooooooooooooooooooooo why do many of the Jews and many others go to and pray at the western wall.. It seems to be an intact wall to me? Did Jesus lie? Is Je❤sus a liar? And where on the temple mount is the fresh, running water needed for the cleansing, and animal sacrifices?.. There isn't any fresh, running water at the temple mount.. The only running water IN all of Jerusalem IS the Gihon Spring and that is in the City of David.. don't fight truth.. it leads nowhere.. Tradition and misrepresentation does NOT= truth
Dear @@rickstrole9634 , Hello ! Thanks for the response ! NOT ONE STONE "Not be one stone ....... " Yes that was what Jesus predicted ! If you read the text carefully, you will notice that Jesus was speaking of the Temple and other buildings on the Temple Mount (Mark 13:2, Matt. 24:1). Notice, Jesus specifically said these stones "every one will be thrown down" (Mark 13:2, Matt. 24:2, Luke 21:6). Of course in 70 AD the Roman legions under Titus destroyed the Temple and the other building of the Temple complex, leaving not one stone upon another. Titus took all the stones of the Temple and other building of the Temple complex, and "threw them down" off the Temple Mount, completely fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus. Today on the eastern side of the Temple Mount we can see some of those stones from the Temple and/or Temple complex buildings, were they have laid for for nearly 2000 years. Unfortunately there is a Muslim cemetery on the eastern side of the Temple Mount that prevents any archaeological excavations in that area. If we could excavate, most archaeologists expect to find evidence of the Temple and Temple buildings. However, this is not the problem with the southern side of the Temple Mount where we have excavated and found evidence of the Temple complex, that was thrown off the Temple Mount. Most notably the Trumpeter Stone, which includes an inscription identifying the artifact. The Temple Warning Inscription, was found off the northern side of the Temple Mount. This makes sense because this is where the Fortress Antonia joined the wall of the Temple Mount and there would be gentiles in the complex of the Fortress Antonia. This inscription provided a warning to gentiles to not not to proceed further onto the Temple grounds. Of course Josephus describes the destruction of the Fortress Antonia by Titus, in order to gain entrance to the Temple Mount and the Temple, from the Northern side of the Temple Mount. THE WESTERN WALL The western wall was emphatically "NOT" a part of the Temple, or the buildings of the Temple complex. The western wall was a part of the Temple Mount on which the Temple once stood. The Jewish people recognize that this is the closest place to where the Temple once stood, that they has access to. That is why they come there to pray. The destruction of the Temple Mount was not a part of the prophecy of Jesus. Jesus specifically was referring to the Temple and the Temple Buildings, not the Temple Mount ! So Jesus did not lie. You have misunderstood what the text clearly speaks about. Someone mislead you with some theories of men, and you didn't check the text of the Scriptures to find the truth of the matter. FRESH RUNNING WATER Point # 1. Where does the Scriptures say fresh, running water is required ??? Please provide the verse(s) where it clearly says that ! (I look forward to your answer) Point # 2. Archaeologist Dr. Scott Stripling is the excavation director at Tell Shiloh (Biblical City of Shiloh). Of course we all know that Shiloh was the location of the tabernacle during the period of the Judges (before Solomon's Temple was built). It, in essence, functioned as the Temple during the time of the Judges and at that time thousands of animal sacrifices were made, apparently without any fresh, running water, as you claim was required. Dr. Stripling confirmed the nearest "fresh, running water" was about 1/2 mile away from the location of the Tabernacle. Water to cleanse the sacrificial area was hauled in from the spring 1/2 mile away. Water was hauled in to the Tabernacle at times during the Exodus in the desert also. You said, "The only running water IN all of Jerusalem is the Gihon Spring". Are you aware that there are some archaeologists hold the idea that Solomon's pools, 5 miles southwest of Jerusalem (at a higher elevation than Jerusalem), was the place of origin of an aqueduct that flowed to Jerusalem ? There is some evidence for this idea. It could be that Solomon provided water flowing directly down hill, from a higher elevation onto the Temple Mount. You said "the Gihon Spring and that is in the City of David". Those that understand the geography of Jerusalem understand that this is not completely true.. The Gihon Spring flowed out of the side of the hill that The City of David was located on. The Spring does NOT flow uphill to the City of David. When people in the City of David wanted water from the Gihon, they had to go down hill, get the water, and haul it up the hill to the City of David. The archaeological findings, tradition and the Scriptures provide some information supporting this idea. This means that Hypothetically, if the Temple were located in the City of David (as some who do not know the Scriptures propose), water would still need to be hauled up to the Temple; it would not flow up hill to the Temple Mount. Of course, the evidence eliminating The location of the Temple in the City of David is overwhelming, and we are very certain the Temple was not located in the valley, where water from the Gihon Spring could flow down hill to the Temple The Scriptures clearly and specifically say that the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah (2 Chron. 3:1) and everyone who is well acquainted with the Scriptures knows the present Temple Mount is on top of Mt. Moriah. It is clear that when Solomon finished the construction of the Temple, the Scriptures tell us that the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple furnishings were carried "OUT" of the City of David (so Scripture clearly supports the idea that the Temple was NOT located in the City of David), and "UP" to the Temple (2 Chron. 5:2, 4, 5). Now from the City of David, if you go west, or east, or south, you will go "down hill" (look on any map to confirm this fact). However, if you go north from the City of David, you will go "UP" in elevation, and guess to where one would go if they went in that direction. -- to the peak of Mt Moriah, where the present Temple Mount is located. This location is where Scripture, archaeology, history and tradition says the Temples (both Solomon's and Zerubbabel/Herod's) were located. I think those who think the Temple(s) were located somewhere other than Mt. Moriah (where the present Temple Mount is located) probably have not studied what the Scriptures say about the issue, and have huge misunderstandings about the witness of not only the Scriptures, but also archaeology, history and tradition. The Temples (both Solomon's and Zerubbabel/Herod's) were certainly located on Mt Moriah - the present Temple Mount. The objective, verifiable evidence is really over whelming. I could give much more evidence but what I have presented is insurmountable. I hope this clarifies some of the issues for you. I have found that people who support an idea contrary to that the Scriptures, archaeology, history and tradition say, usually do not want to respond to an explanation like this, but if you have any contentions or questions, I am more than willing and able to discuss this issue with you. I am interested in how you answer the many questions that are contrary to your theory. Be Well, DZ
The opinion of Bob Kornuke's motives is incorrect. He is on to something of immense proportions. The Apostle Paul was in the Temple when a ruckus broke out and fearing for Paul's safety the Captain of the Temple guards called for Roman soldiers to take Paul into protective custody. In the Book of Acts Luke recounts the Romans came down to the Temple from the fort. Which is clearly impossible if the Temple was at the summit of Mt. Moriah. The temple was indeed built on the threshing floor to the north of the old city walls on the ophel mound which is located on the southern flank of Mt Moriah. As Josephus also noted the Temple overlooked the City of David while the Roman fort overlooked the Temple. The tradition of men have blinded us to the evidence in the Bible.
71superbee3 Nonsense...the Ophel has been excavated and there is no possible way the Temple could have been located there. Fort Antonio was above Herod's Temple. Most of what is visible to the eye today is only 500 years old, but it is clear that the ground to the northwest of the Temple (where Fort Antonio was located) is higher ground...not to mention the foundation it was constructed upon. Have you ever been to Jerusalem? By the way, for those who keep pushing the idea that the Temple was in The City of David I suggest they read 1 Kings 8:1
I guess the words of Josephus are a mystery because another version says the fort was {80ft} above the Temple. The Bible also says this holy site will be "divided" in a sharing arrangement.
You are correct. Bob Cornuke has never said or implied that God can't make anything happen. All he is pointing out are facts, backed up by Scripture and historical evidence.
it was in the name of "tradition" that the Jews had Yeshua the Messiah crucified, and what happened after that? in 70 ad the temple was destroyed fulfilling Yeshua prophecy "there shall be left no stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." meaning the temple was to be razed and leveled to the ground erased! and it was so, Roman General Titus legions did just that . the Jews post temple rabbinical "tradition" has no bearing on the location of the temple because they do not know where it was. Jewish temple worship violates the commandment on idolatry because the temple was made the object of worship not the place of worship to God.
Ken Kline did a very well done documentary on this subject. He refers to Josephus' writings which makes the most sense. Josephus was alive during this time so he was an eye witness to where everything was located. Josephus gives a very detailed written map that allows the reader to understand that the temple mount was not the site of the temple. I'm not familiar with the other experts on this topic, but I do think an eye witness is an important factor.
Josephus said Fort Antonio was to the north of the Temple and that there was 600 feet between the two complexes. You don't have room to build 600 feet to the north of what is called the Temple Mount., there is room 600 feet to the south. Which is likely where the Temple was located.
@Navigator001 he was also Flavian. The order of Constantine. Whether to accept his writings as truth, are a 50/50 shot. Some of his things are proven out, some are off slightly... and some are way off, set for a narrative. I think this description though, if isolated line by line, and set with a pertinent vantage point, can be accepted. The Bible and several other writings of the time are problematic at the very least for the current temple mount location. The new testament says... not a stone left unturned. The writings say, the location was plowed over like a farmers field. I'm still researching now though, and haven't made a full determination, but the evidence is building towards the lower site.
You should read the Bible instead. It is on Mount Moriah. 13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.” David bought the threshing floor on Mount Moriah. We don't know that was the exact same place as the ram, but it is on the small mountain.
Josephus' dimensions are 115 m from East to West, Western side 35 m and Eastern side 42 m, with four towers. The ROCK ON WHICH THE FORTRESS WAS BUILT (dome of the rock)was 50 cubits high (22-31 m). The height of the fortress itself was 40 cubits (18-25 m.) and it had 4 towers, one in each corner. The height of three of the towers was 50 cubits and the fourth tower was 70 cubits: "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. (239) In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament, and that anyone who would either try to get up or to go down it, might not be able to hold his feet upon it. (240) 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. (241) 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; (242) 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; (243) 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 (244) (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; (245) 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. There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod's palace; (246) but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower of 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. (247) 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." (Josephus, Wars 5.238-247)
Dear @pfehrman, The part about a "legion" being stationed in Jerusalem is a mistranslation. The first time a legion was in Jerusalem was when Titus sieged Jerusalem were multiple Roman Legions in 70 AD. During the siege, the Legio X camped on the Mt. Of Olives. AfterJerusalem fell the, Legio X was garrisoned at Jerusalem with their main camp on the Western Hill, near the fortress at Herod's Palace. So when a Roman Legion did have orders to stay in Jerusalem, they did not camp on the Temple Mount, but instead across the valley from the Temple Mount. They could not stay at Fortress Antonia because Titus had Antonia destroyed from the foundations, in order to gain entrance on the Temple Mount from the northern side. That is why the Fortress Antonia does not exist today - Titus destroyed it (as described by Josephus). Only the Temple Mount remains. The Tenth Legion (Legio X Fretensis) was stationed in Caesarea Maritima, the seat of the Roman procurators in the region, not Jerusalem. DZ
It’s Really bad. She Asks a question. Then proceeds to answer asked question same time he’s trying to answer. Yeah. Yeah yes yeah. PLEASE JUST BE QUIET. LET HIM TALK
It is impossible to listen when this VERY ANNOYING arrogant lady rudely interrupts the speaker, interferes, and adds, and intervenes!!!!!!!! Stop her, let him speak!!!!!! I couldn't watch it till the end because of her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is impossible to listen when this VERY ANNOYING arrogant lady rudely interrupts the speaker, interferes, and adds, and intervenes!!!!!!!! Stop her, let him speak!!!!!! I couldn't watch it till the end because of her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suggest to send Cornuke to the Israelmuseum and the Davidson Center first, so he can see remains of the surroundings of the Temple buildings with his own eyes.
The spring of living water flowing from beneath the throne has great symbolism. The priest didn't just wash in the stream to clean themselves physically it symbolized being cleaned by the spirit of God before you can come into his presence. The stream flowing out from the temple was symbolic of gods spirit flowing out to the whole world to cleanse it of sin. Not just any stream but almost supernatural stream the Gihon (The Gusher) that only flows on the surface after it departed the temple. The temple was destroyed to the foundations' anything less is calling Jesus a liar.
Martin's book explains that Mt. Zion was razed during the Hasmonean era (see Josephus), and they gave a westerly peak the name of Mt. Zion, which is why there was confusion about where the original City of David was located. He also states that Moriah is the range, not a specific mountain. Recently, archaeologists found a packed surface that they can't explain near the Gihon, and we must ask whether it could be a (or the) threshing floor. Additionally, this passage from Ezekiel 9:2 shows that the temple was near the upper gate of the city: And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar." Then they start at the temple and go throughout the city to deal withe the evil men. Also, the psalm quoted in the video also shows that the city and Mt. Zion are the same thing. "Walk about Zion, go around her, count her towers, 13 consider well her ramparts, view her citadels, that you may tell of them to the next generation." Psalm 48
If you read the Bible, it says that David looked UP, went Up to the threshing floor and purchased it. The floor was not in the city because David would have not needed to purchase it and David did not go down to near the Gihon spring to the floor which would not have been near or on the town's source of water. Neither did David's palace later look down on the temple. Solomon also built his own palace and the residence of Pharoah's daughter whom he married and other buildings between David's palace and the temple which was all referred to as being UP not down in the old city of David. Threshing floors were outside towns and cities in rural areas usually at some high point so that the wind could carry away the chaff. Gihon is way down low. God told Abraham to go to the mountains of Moriah to the place God would show him to offer his son as a sacrifice. The place he offered on the altar was where David bought the threshing floor and built an altar to the Lord to sacrifice on and also where the temple was built by Solomon where the angel of the Lord stood beside the threshing floor. It is also the same mount ( Golgotha) where Christ was crucified although that was further up. The sacrifices all tie in together. When Solomon built the temple he also extended the walls to encompass it along with the extended city and it was called Zion. You don't change the city name just because you have extended it. After that Mt. Moriah was recognised as Zion which is Jerusalem. The temple was not built near the Gihon spring as it is down too low for a start and temples and other places of worship were built in high places.
Let me reply to a few points. First, you are incorrect that David looked up and saw the threshing floor. Rather, he looked up and saw the angel standing or hovering between heaven and earth with his outstretched sword ready to kill throughout Jerusalem. He then fell to his face, after which, he got up and went to the threshing floor, which probably was north of his location. The threshing floor may have been just outside the primary city walls, but there were several walls at various stages around the hill of the city. Going up doesn't really prove that the threshing floor was on the so-called temple mount since there are a number of locations in the City of David that one could go up from and not go up a different mountain. In fact, Nehemiah 12 shows that David's palace was to the south of the Water Gate/Gihon Spring because the group that dedicated the wall passed it before reaching the Water Gate, thus, David could have gone "up" from there. Second, the temple was most likely below the Akra that the Greek's built, which then became the fortress Antonia. The Akra reportedly was found just north and west of Gihon spring, but south of the so-called temple mount, and it was said to overlook the temple. I've personally seen the remains of the Roman camps at Masada, the largest of which looks almost identical to the size and shape of the Haram. We know that Herod enlarged both the temple and the fortress, the latter of which he built to impress his patron, Marcus Antony. Third, the temple was built above the Gihon or up the hill, which has one outlet midway down the eastern hill of Jerusalem that was stopped up during Hezekiah's time, but also has a subterranean conduit up the hill, which was rerouted later to to bring water to the pool of Siloam through Hezekiah's tunnel. The Gihon is a siphon spring that periodically pushes water up and out, and so was funneled up through to the temple, and the eye witness Tacitus stated there was an inexhaustible spring within the temple confines. Fourth, you are correct it is "mountains of Moriah" because it is a chain, rather than one mountain. Jerusalem is synonymous with Zion, and it is the Mt. of Assembly or of the Congregation. Fifth, there was a square near the Water Gate (which led east down and out to the tower over the Gihon spring) which is where Ezra read the law, and it was where the people assembled, which would likely be near the actual temple. According to Josephus, Mt. Zion was later razed and leveled during the Hasmonean period, which is why the City of David became known as the Lower City. The fact a different hill was later called Zion should show that things were moved and renamed. Sixth, Solomon was anointed King at the Gihon Spring and David pitched his tabernacle near the Gihon, which housed the Ark of Covenant and joyful worship in song. It should tell us there is something special about that place. Seventh, God Himself showed the pattern of things by having the Israelites encamp around the tabernacle - He wanted His people surrounding Him (or God With Us), not to be away from them on a distant hill. This same patterning is shown during the Feast of Booths, when men live in temporary shelters to commemorate living with God in the desert. Booths were created in that same square and through Jerusalem as reported in Nehemiah - not up the hill near to a more distant temple outside of the assembly. Priests also lived surrounding this area on the Ophel and below. Eighth, the rock under the Dome is in no shape or form good for a threshing floor, but does seem to fit the description of the rocky outcropping that the Fortress Antonia was built around. Ninth, and lastly, archaeologists have found a compacted surface near and above the Gihon for which they have no explanation. My suggestion is we should consider whether they found the threshing floor. The threshing floor was never built over because it had been owned by a Jebusite who were impossible to evict and some lived in the City of David, and this is exactly what they say about the compacted surface found - it exists completely without association with other structures. It doesn't make sense for efficiency to move tons of stalks of grain out of the valley where it was grown all the way up a mountain past the city, and then move the grain back down to the people who would grind and bake it - no, that threshing floor would be ridiculous if it were moved well out of the reach of people who need it.
When the guest is talking the lady needs to close her mouth. She is talking over him and neither can be understood. Lost information because of this. SAD.
It is impossible to listen when this VERY ANNOYING arrogant lady rudely interrupts the speaker, interferes, and adds, and intervenes!!!!!!!! Stop her, let him speak!!!!!! I couldn't watch it till the end because of her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've listened extensively to both sides of this argument and am convinced that Cornuke is closer to the truth. Mr. Walker conveniently glosses over some things and completey ignores eye witness and historical records of Josephus that have been proven to be accurate and well accepted - except when it comes to the location of the temple. He also chooses to believe second and third hand sources of information that have their basis in tradition. I'll stick with Cornuke and Martin as they rely much more on all scriptural accounts, historical records (including eye witnesses), archaeological findings, and scientific method.
Josephus' description of the two colonnades is not clear. He never said that it was two side by side going 600 feet down to the temple. He did say the Fortress Antonio was situated at the corner where the north and west colonnade met. Which is one going south and one going east.
Have u seen the archeological findings as well ? Did u read the entire josephus of how huge this temple was ? Have u read the pamphlet written by the last Mufti about Bet El makdus? Let me guess prob not
The real Temple was totally destroyed as prophesied by Jesus, not one stone shall stand upon another. Either Jesus was wrong or Mount Zion (City of David) is the real location of the Jewish Temple. Matthew 24:1-2 "Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
There is no stone standing upon another... there is a heap left against the Temple platform, s/w west corner. They are partly blackened from the fires. I hope you are not assuming that the Temple platform is part of the buildings! It isn't!! When the fires started, despite the order of Titus, the soldiers tore the stones apart to get the gold. Golden panels hung on the outer walls of the Temple building...
The Jews know their own history!! Why do you think that you are right?? The Western Wall where Jews pray is the closest that they can get to where the Temple was.
Beulah Edwards, I'm not trying to argue with you, but I do doubt the temple mount is the correct place simply because God's Word tells us that no stone would remain upon another. Clearly the Western wall proves that a very many stones remain upon another. So that location cannot be the correct location. As far as the Jews knowing where everything should be, that isn't correct. They were out of their land for a very long time; for more than a thousand years. They had to relearn about their land when they returned and much of that is through archeology. I do, personally believe that Josephus did describe the valley of the cheese mongers as being the area where the temple had been located; much closer to the water resources. And I do believe it makes more sense for the threshing floor location as well. And wasn't it Titus that had mount Zion torn down and leveled? If what Josephus wrote was accurate, and I believe it is, then the citadel was larger than the temple mount and was connected by two arms (bridges). The towers too are described differently than the model that is displayed in Israel. So the Jews aren't perfect in a recollection that they can't have since they've been gone for so long from their land...and of course no one remains alive today who lived then to tell them anything at all. Josephus is as close as you're going to get to that.
If you read Ezra 3:1-6 you will see that sacrifices were begun before the 2nd temple was even built. They began with only an altar. Is it possible that the same could happen today? If the sacrifices began before the temple was built it would take many by surprise. It is something to consider, God tends to do things in ways very different than people expect. A temple is going to be built but is not needed for the sacrifices to begin, note verse 6 of Ezra 3.
A key quote from this interview is, "You don't need to help God". I am watching this in Sept 2020. I even fall into the trap of believing, "No one can possibly displace the Dome of the Rock". I don't think that anymore. The temple is where the temple is. God will have his temple where it will be. All of our worries over geopolitical ramifications of this or that doesn't matter. God will have his way. It will be with authority and power. His power will displayed to all, including those who believe an those that don't.
It’s funny because the god of Israel and Allah are the same. Abraham is also the father of Muslims also remember he had a child with his Egyptian slave. It will be world war 3 if anyone tries to tear down the Temple Mount
Seriously Derek, "Helping out God"?. How about " It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to seek it out." The very existence of the intact walls which still exist from the original construction of the Haram would turn Yeshua's prophecy into a lie. If you believe in the supremacy of Yeshua (Jesus) then the "Temple Mount" cannot be the sight. That is all I need because I am not going to black out those words with a big sharpie or nuthin. The big difference between "Cornukey" (as you call him) and you, is that I am way more satisfied with the scholarly study and interpretation of the evidence that Bob Cornuke (it is pronounced Cornook) has put forth. It was actually painful to watch you two draw loose conclusions to some seemingly applicable verses, while Bob is actually on the ground doing the measurements and taking the evidence in a logical direction. All you have is a speculative view with not much to back it up but tradition. I can't believe you filled up a full hour with all your... well nuthin really. You say that we are helping the Muslims. I say that you are helping perpetuate the whole christian religion as a myth. Never let the facts get in the way, just have faith right? Riiiight!
Michael Fairbanks; Here is a video you might like to view by a Hebrew scholar; who shows with many scriptures that what is called the site of the Temple Mount today is totally wrong." Bible Proofs of Temple Location".
Brent, If the Temple location is where Bob says it is, and not on the Haram Al Sharif, the gusher would be right inside the Temple. Conversely, if the Temple stood on the Haram, that would require some hydraulic engineering. Have you examined Bobs theory? Something tells me no.
In case you didn't know, Gihon does in fact mean gusher in Hebrew. I simply transliterate the name. And your point about the aqueduct coming from Bethlehem is silly. Most know this is a Roman artifact, and as Bob proposes, just like the fortress that it had supplied. Without this there would be no water supply to the so called "Temple Mount". So the Temple on the Haram is more of an engineering problem than you point out would be for Cornukes theory. How much farther up the hill can water move. Shall we put the Temple on the very top of Mount Moriah? Bernoulli's equation is silly to interject here as though you know something. I has more to do with pressure differentials within a horizontal pipe of varying diameters, much like an air venturi . However when David built the Altar it was right beside the Gihon Spring. If it had been on the Haram, where did he get the water from? The Roman Aqueduct? again that is just silly, because it wasn't there in his day. So that is a problem for you. The top of Moriah is even more of a problem for you. So it seems to ,me that you are just repeating the same stuff Derek here has said like Martin is heretical, and that may be the case. But it is clear that you haven't grasped the theory that Cornuke has proposed, but you're just coming out swinging because it doesn't fit into your traditional view
The Bible and Jewish records show that the temple was indeed on the temple mount. It was fed water from an aqueduct from the pools of Solomon at Etan near Bethlehem. The aqueduct was well before the time of the aqueduct that Pilot later built.
Mr. Derek Walker around 12:40 in your video you said it all, God will bring it to fruition, I agree with you 100 percent. God had all of this laid out before the world was and God knows what He is doing. If we pray and ask God to show us where this location is, I know God will show us, if He thinks it's important for us to know. In my humble curiosity, I would like to know where it was located too for the sake of simply knowing. And even though I agree that God could use an earthquake, God always has a way that is so beautiful about the way He does things and right now as I watch these Jewish folks digging around that area, I can't help but see the hand of God at work on them. God bless you Brother and thank you for the video, I pray Father God bless you in all that you do.
Don't you think that Jesus is seeking the lost among the enemies of the Jews as well as among the Unbelieving Jews themselves? I pray that the eyes and understanding of these lost peolpes will be opened and that they would repent and believe soon! MARANATHA LORD JESUS
@@marionchase-kleeves8311 absolutely, I believe that King Jesus died for everyone and this includes Jews and their enemies. I pray for God’s Holy Spirit to move their hearts to repentance and to receiving Christ.
The "temple mound" is not where the temples were. That is Fort Antonia, home of the Xth Legion of Rome. The very legion that destroyed the last Temple. As our Creator King Yehoshua Ha'Meshiach, Immanuel, prophecies.
Yes, this is the biggest mistake interviewers make since going from television to video. They think it's like the days of TV and commercials where they are accustomed to hearing the guest constantly interrupted by the host due to predetermined times for commercial breaks. With video there are not predetermined commercial breaks. If there are any commercials, they are layered on top. So, the host will ask for weeks and months to get this important guest to visit their show. Then, the host will talk over their guest and constantly interrupt them. This greatly distracts the audience and frustrates those listening who wants to hear the guest make one uninterrupted statement. The audience also wants to hear the guest and glean their knowledge. In addition, the interview is not a social conversation, so the host should not be constantly saying something back for every sentence the guest makes. This is another common mistake hosts make, thinking they are engaging in a social conversation, they are not. The job of the host is to only plod the guest with the least amount of questions to glean their knowledge and keep their story progressing. Please try this. At first, it will seem awkward, but you will receive so many kudos from your audience, you will be amazed. How do you do this? First, introduce your guest and welcome them, make any beginning announcements, but keep them short. Then, allow your guest to talk and tell their story, uninterrupted. Let them complete their story as long as they are not rambling. Give them the number of minutes in advance of how much time they have to complete the overview of their story. Sit on your hands if you need to keep from interrupting. Do not complete their sentences. You don't always say the same thing as your guest when you try to complete their sentences, again disrupting the guest. In summary, if you remember nothing else I've suggested, remember and do this one thing. -- Allow the guest to complete their initial story and then you can ask questions. This one change will win you such appreciation from your audience, you will hardly believe it. I remember when the longer video interviews first began on YT, this one popular interviewer would allow his guest expert to fully tell their story about their experience or their area of knowledge without one interruption. In reality, we discovered he was trying to learn to manage the live chat during the time his guests were speaking as he didn't have many moderators yet. He was trying to copy down significant questions from the chat. But, I noticed he received the most positive comments about his interviewing technique allowing these guests to speak their full story or expertise uninterrupted, Then, we discovered he wasn't using some great secret technique for interviewing skills, it was because he was multitasking, but it worked beautifully. Lastly, this host did not commit the two worst mistakes of being a host, but they bear mentioning. The absolute worst mistake the host can make is when they have invited the most wonderful guest expert, and they notice that they have larger than normal numbers of audience attendees listening, they get excited about the numbers and decide they want to make it all about them with this larger audience, so the the host spends the whole time talking on and on about themselves or what they think about the topic the guest expert is supposed to be talking about, and the guest is hardly allowed to talk. The audience members may be screaming at their media device at this point to let the guest talk, let the guest talk, please!!!! Then there is the very worst case scenario, and I've witnessed this. The very worst case happens when the host is talking so much, that the guest gives up trying to tell their story, and begins interviewing the host instead as they can barely get a sentence in, or worse yet, sits in silence, while the minutes wile away with the host getting high off the sound of their own voice losing all awareness that they even have a guest expert they have been trying to invite to their show for days, weeks, months or years. I know it's difficult for a host to read constructive feedback about their performance, so I hope the producers will read this and let her know as gently as possibly. This was three years ago, so she may have already have received the feedback and incorporated it. However, people are very interested in this topic right now as we live in the end of the current age, as the guest and host have noted, and with everything feeling so uncertain, people will be seeking out this topic. I hope this feedback will be taken in the spirit in which it was intended, only to be helpful in getting the message out as clearly as possible.
This assumption that the Temple needed to be located exactly where Abraham was to sacrifice Issac doesn't make sense. If there is supposed to be some divine sacrificial connection, then why wasn't Christ crucified at the temple as well. The threshing floor was located just outside the north wall of the City of David. That is where the temple was built. When Soloman built the temple, he had to extend the city walls just a little further north. He was not going to enclose the entire mountain with walls. In fact those walls were discovered on the Ophel. There is no water supply at the Temple Mount. The only source of water was at the Gihon spring which had a vertical channel that gushed water upwards to the temple. Additionally, eyewitnesses clearly placed the Temple lower and to the south of Fort Antonia. In 70AD it was utterly destroyed to the point no one would ever have known a temple was on the location.
*Christ was crucified at Golgotha - the northern peak of Mount Moriah in fulfilment of Gen 22:14, but the city of david is not Mt.Moriah. *Yourview that the temple was north of City of David is different from Cornuke's which says it was within the city of david - but on your view there is no place for Solomon's Palace. Solomon's Palace complex had to be on the Ophel north of the City of David, the Temple had to above that on the Temple mount. *There is no evidence of water gushing up 50 feet through a channel - the gihon is not a geyser. Moreover from Hezekiah in the 1st temple and throughout the 2nd Temple the water of the Gihon was diverted to the Pool of Siloam by Hezekiah's Tunnel, so there is no way the Gihon supplied water to the Temple. Jewish records are clear that the Temple was supplied from the Pools of Solomon near Bethlehem by an aqueduct. *on the classic view the temple mount is lower and south of antonia - i think you are referring to cornuke's twisting of Josephus who said that only the Bethesda hill north of the temple mount obstructed the view of temple mount from the north which is true of the classic view. Somehow Cornuke changed this to mean that the Temple could not be seen from the north.
Psalm 14 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the LORD? There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. You would shame the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge. Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad.
Mac Tek your answer to the certification of Christ Jesus and where it is designated is in Leviticus 1:11 Northward of the sheer instructing north without or outside the camp in the fulfillment of the law and prophets. In this case that was the same place where Abraham offered up Isaac north of the threshing floor where the temple was built. The problem is the misinterpretation of where Isaac was offered as to the place of the ark of the covenant. These two are not synonymous nor the same but different appointments. One of God's dwelling place separate from HIS sacrifice for sin, who became sin, unable to be in the presents of God at that moment. Like two ships passing in the night. THAT was Golgotha the place of the scull, Calvary.
Although modern reconstructions often depict the fortress as having a tower at each of four corners, the historian Josephus repeatedly refers to it as the tower Antonia, and stated that it had been built by John Hyrcanus for storing the vestments used in the Temple.[1] However, Josephus states: "The general appearance of the whole was that of a tower with other towers at each of the four corners; three of these turrets were fifty cubits high, while that at the south-east angle rose to seventy cubits and so commanded a view of the whole area of the temple."[2] Some archaeologists are of the opinion that the fortress was only a single tower, located at the south-east corner of the site;[3] for example, Pierre Benoit, former professor of New Testament studies at the École Biblique, having carried out extensive archaeological studies of the site, concurs and adds that there is absolutely no [archaeological] support for there having been four towers.[4] Josephus attests to the importance of the Antonia: "For if the Temple lay as a fortress over the city, Antonia dominated the Temple & the occupants of that post were the guards of all three." Josephus placed the Antonia at the northwest corner of the colonnades surrounding the Temple. Modern depictions often show the Antonia as being located along the north side of the temple enclosure. However, Josephus' description of the siege of Jerusalem suggests that it was separated from the temple enclosure itself and probably connected by two colonnades with a narrow space between them. Josephus' measurements suggest about a 600-foot separation between the two complexes. Why did the two 600-foot aerial bridges disappear from the pages of history? They were mentioned in two 19th-century books written by scholars Lewin, Sanday & Waterhouse, who probably read Josephus in the original Greek, whilst others, later relied on William Whiston, an 18th-century translator. We cannot know if Whiston was influenced by traditional thinking but he probably decided that Josephus had erred when he gave the length of the aerial roadways as a furlong (Stadion), so Whiston used the words “no long space of ground”. War VI, 2, 144 Based upon Jerusalem’s topography and the impossibility of placing Fort Antonia six hundred feet further north of the alleged Temple Mount, Whiston’s translation obscured their existence, although there are ten references in Josephus to these bridges. Prior to the First Jewish-Roman War, the Antonia housed some part of the Roman garrison of Jerusalem. The Romans also stored the high priest's vestments within the Fortress. During the defence of Herod’s Temple, supposedly the Jewish fighters demolished the Tower of Antonia. Josephus is adamant the Jews had no chance of destroying a huge Roman fort with 60-foot walls, defended by thousands of Roman troops. It’s the destruction of the two 600-foot aerial bridges that is meant. It fulfilled the prophecy: “When square the walls, the Temple falls.” Roman soldiers then hastened to construct siege banks against the Temple’s north wall. Battle lasted until they seized the sanctuary. (Wikipedia)
Josephus describes the Romans as the ones who destroyed the Fortress Antonia, not the Jews. He describes the Fortress Antonia joining the Temple Mount on the northwest corner. He also says one of the towers of the fortress was left standing and was used by Titus to observe the battle for the Temple Mount and the Temple itself. Afterwards this tower was also destroyed and nothing remained of the Fortress Antonia. Josephus' description of the siege of Jerusalem does not suggest that the fortress was separated from the Temple Mount. He suggests they were adjoined to one another. The two 600-foot aerial bridges - where is this in the writings of Josephus ? Be Well, DZ
yes - the waters of the Gihon were diverted to the pool of siloam at the south end of the city of david through hezekiah's tunnel. If anything this means the temple could not have been watered by the gihon, because the waters went instead to siloam for the people of the city to use. Also the gihon is down in the valley and so could not send the waters uphill to the top of the city of david ridge - water does not flow uphill - there is nothing like enogh water pressure and in any case it would be dissipated once hezekiah's tunnel was built.
CPOAU Never. The temple cannot be in the city of David. See the below video and understand that the ancient Herodian road doesn’t stop with the city of David but goes all the way to the Temple Mount. ua-cam.com/video/Z5OaFxK14yc/v-deo.html&feature=share
You don't understand what Jesus did. The blind man had to walk through the entire City of David to reach the pool, proof of faith! At the same day the priests went down to get water for the water offering at Hoshana Rabba, the seventh day of the feast of Tabernacles. They found a way straight from the Temple to Siloam, the Herodian road. And they found a tunnel from the corner of the Templesquare to Siloam. I walked through it.
I accept the temple was built in the city of david however the temple area known as the Antonia fortress & where the dome of the rock is Why build huge massive foundations on this site especially when this area has the bedrock surfaces under the dome of the rock .
@@DerekWalkerOBC That is no valid argument. The small Fort Antonia isn't big enough to house enough soldiers. Rom wouldn't have ruled Jerusalem with a handful of soldiers.
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?
@@SpotterVideo Yeah, and the shape of the supposed "temple mount" is the same shape as Roman fortresses. They didn't destroy it and us why it's still standing today. Lots of wars took place at that fortress since then and so some of it is ruined.
@@jamescobrien Here is another piece of evidence. The following is from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who was a teenager during 70 AD. In section 12 he said there was a spring of never-failing water in the Jewish temple. This puts the location of the temple at the Gihon Spring. The Jews Book Five (1-13) of The Histories by Tacitus "11. So after encamping, as I have said, before the walls of Jerusalem, he paraded his legions in formation before the eyes of the enemy. The Jews, marshalled close under their walls, were in a position to venture further out if they were successful and had a place of refuge ready at hand in case of defeat. Titus sent against them cavalry and some cohorts in battle order, but the encounter was indecisive. Then the enemy gave ground, and for some days thereafter fought a succession of engagements just in front of the gates. Finally, repeated losses drove them behind the walls. The Romans then concentrated on an assault. After all, it seemed beneath them to wait for hunger to do its work on the enemy, and the troops actually asked to be allowed to risk their lives. Some did so because they had real courage, many from mere bravado and a desire for rewards. As for Titus, his imagination dwelt on Rome, wealth and pleasure: it would be long before these dreams were realized if Jerusalem were destined not to fall in the immediate future. But the city occupied a commanding position, and it had been reinforced by engineering works so massive that they might have rendered even a flat site impregnable. Two lofty hills were enclosed by walls skilfully staggered and forming re-entrant angles designed to expose the flank of an attacker. At the edge of the crags was a sharp drop, and a series of towers dominated the scene, 105 feet high where the rising ground helped, and 135 or 120 feet high on the lower contours. (19) These presented an impressive appearance, and to the distant observer seemed to be on a level. There were further walls inside around the palace, and a conspicuous landmark was the lofty castle of Antonia, so named by Herod in honour of Mark Antony. 12. The Temple was like a citadel and had its own walls, which had been even more laboriously and skilfully constructed than the rest. The porticoes around it constituted in themselves an excellent defensive position. To these advantages must be added a spring of never-failing water, chambers cut in the living rock, and tanks and cisterns for the storage of rainwater. Its builders had foreseen only too well that the strange practices of the Jews would lead to continual fighting. Hence everything was available for a siege, however long. Moreover, after Pompey's capture of Jerusalem, fear and experience taught them many lessons. So taking advantage of the money-grubbing instincts of the Claudian period, they purchased permission to fortify the city, and in the days of peace built walls meant for war. Already the home of a motley concourse, its population had been swollen by the fall of the other Jewish cities, for the most determined partisan leaders escaped to the capital, and thereby added to the turmoil. There were three different leaders and three armies. The long outer perimeter of the walls was held by Simon, the central part of the city by John, and the Temple by Eleazar. John and Simon could rely on numbers and equipment, Eleazar on his strategic position. But it was upon each other that they turned the weapons of battle, ambush and fire, and great stocks of corn went up in flames. Then John sent off a party of men, ostensibly to offer sacrifice but in reality to cut Eleazar and his followers to pieces, thus gaining possession of the Temple. Hence-forward, therefore, Jerusalem was divided between two factions, until, on the approach of the Romans, fighting the foreigner healed the breach between them."
If the temple was built in the city of david then why did the Jews build the Temple Mount foundations with huge stones some are 600 tons for the base The Temple Mount foundations were laid down 3000 years before the Roman’s made it into there fort.
People forget that when Jesus said ''no stone shall be left upon another'' the conversation was about THE TEMPLE , not the city or the foundation of the temple. Remember, they were looking at the temple when the conversation took place.
And you forget that Josephus said the also wiped the city off the map completely . It wasn't just the temple but the city walls, homes and the buildings . They left nothing standing except the Roman fortress.
Extremely fascinating! I totally agree with the new theory. In fact , I've watched another video - The Coming of the Temple, which also refutes the theory of the Dome of the Rock being the original site of the first and second temple. I believe that archaeology is playing a profound role in supporting the Bible, and the more archaeological finds are uncovered, the more the supporting evidence. Thank you very much for your video! God bless
But...the archeologists are all in agreement that the temple mount was the site of the previous two temples...if there was an once of credibility in what Martin and Cornuke are saying, then you would have seen articles published in the Biblical Archeology Review.
The temple was never on that mount. That’s the fortress Antonia and was never the location of the temple. Why can’t you believe Jesus and Josephus? Jesus never made stupid statements He was and is very specific and Jesus Christ said that not one stone would be left standing upon another. Don’t you see all of the stones standing upon another? Scripture also says that where the temple was would be plowed like a field and it would have a forest growing on it. Why do you choose to support lies that call Jesus a liar? Robinson’s arch is simply the fortress Antonia end of the causeway that went over to the REAL Temple and the steps that Paul was carried up are still there on the side of the old Roman fortress. Oh and you people that like to say you checked the Old Testament, tell me where the cisterns are mentioned in scripture? There’s NO cisterns under the real Temple because God had the Temple located by artesian water. The clean pure water had to come up out of the ground for the sacrifices to be clean. The aquaducts and the cisterns under the fortress Antonia prove that it was NEVER the real location of anything but a fortress and pagan temples. There were no Jews in Jerusalem for 400 years after the Romans burned the temple and there were 4 locations that the Jews thought could have been the temple’s location. The mount that you falsely call the temple mount is outside of the city of David too. It’s a demonic lie to place the temple on that old pagan Roman fortress.
Derek, your position although gracious in nature and mainstream in thought, intellectually has completely discredited Bob's hypothesis with only a handful of arguments without addressing many other questions raised by Bob that would put your entire hypothesis into question. For example are you saying the Fortress was considerably smaller than the temple footprint? Can you show us the evidence of a Roman Legion being camped for many years north of the temple? You are saying 4 thousand soldiers being permanently based in Jerusalem (an extremely zealous religious community with pure hatred towards the Romans) would allow this community to build such a "fortress" while they themselves would be set up in a "camp" next door like sitting ducks? Open to assault or invasion? If you read Josephus' writings of the war in Jerusalem, you see the zeal and passion of the Jewish warriors. They killed many Roman soldiers in 69-70 AD. I can't imagine the Romans did not understand this. In my studies at Jerusalem College, our professor made it very clear that Herod was paranoid beyond logic and feared being overthrown by the jewish people. He loved Roman culture and looked to Roman to keep his throne. We had the privilege of attended the archeological digs of the city of Sepphoris for a day. It was here that our professor discussed Herod's desire to please Rome at the cost of jewish citizen's taxes. This city was an expression of this desire. It was Herodian in nature for many years following. Herod would have made sure the Roman soldiers were much more secure than the religious leaders in Jerusalem. If you believe the Romans were just encamped north of the temple for 100s of years, can you show this practice anywhere else for Roman Legions in history? Jerusalem was ground zero for Israel and central for the control of government and religion? If you knew the possibilities of revolt, would you let the jews have higher ground, and fortified walls. Would you give them 35 Acres while giving the Fortress of Antonio a small corner the size of a English castle? Would Herod do this? If you study Herod, you would have to say no! His loyalty to Rome over jewish religious was in everything he did. Herod was loyal to Mark Anthony. And, His later fight to gain his throne for 3 years, was not going to happen again. In conclusion, I do not necessarily disagree with your position entirely, but I think your hypothesis of stating the obvious evidence we have all been looking at for 100 years, and completely discrediting all of Bob's hypothesis is premature and unfounded at this point. Let us really study the evidence of all that has been discovered and being discovered. When God is ready, he will let us know exactly where Solomon's temple really was located. Be careful that history does not put your argument in opposition to the truth.
According to the scriptures, Solomon built the temple on Mt. Moriah on the threshing floor where David built an alter to God and where many believe Abraham offered his son as a sacrifice. Cornuke has based his claims on Martin's theories and changed the diagram somewhat to support his claim. Cornuke as far as I know has no formal training in archaeology and his biblical studies were done through a non accredited college. His organisation the name of which escapes me at the moment is run on his property. Think about that. Walker's argument is very valid. Also, Zion encompasses all Jerusalem not just the old city of David. When a city is extended, it still has the same name. Most of Martin's and Cornuke's claims are standing on the Gihon spring however, that was a source of water for the people in the city and was diverted to the southern end. After an earthquake, the Gihon's water became bitter so, it would be of no use for the temple. Also the name Zion which they only refer to in the old city of David and not the extended city of later dates. As far as Antonia goes, it was destroyed as well so, no one really has an idea of what it was like. If you look at a picture of the entire mount area looking down on it, the muslim mosque is standing on a long rectangle that runs the length of the mount. It would be pretty obvious that the fortress was there. Have a look at Michael Rood's ' The secret of Solomon's temple' vids on you tube. He explains thing pretty well too but places Solomon's temple a little further from the dome. As far as water goes, there are 4 or 5 cisterns of permanent water on the mount area. They're covered by stones at the moment. The Arabs were concerned about the water affecting the dome and tried to drain the cisterns but, they kept filling back up. Seeing as though the Arabs won't let anyone investigate, we don't know at the moment where that water is coming from.
Brent Cairns maybe you should read my other comments Brent. I am saying this video claims Bob's evidence and conclusion is wrong and I am saying there is too much there to discredit so quickly.
Minniebell why are you all trying to discredit Bob and slander his education. We are a sad people when we attach someone's character because they disagree with our opinion. That was my original point to the gentlemen in thi video
What I am saying is that Cornuke has no ' education ' when it comes to the temple etc. He has drawn from Martin's theory and Martin was way wrong. Cornuke in his book also misquoted scripture that says the temple stood on Mt. Moriah. Cornuke removed the reference to Mt. Moriah. You CANNOT do that with the word of God. You CANNOT change God's word to make it line up with your own belief or theories. Hence, the man is leading people astray with what he is saying. What I was pointing out with Cornuke is that people need to be aware of the fact that he is not a learned man when it comes to scripture, history or archaeology. You cannot ignore people who have made it their life to research all these things and have also approved training and all the rest of it to assert your own claim. Have I made myself a bit clearer? I was't actually attacking the man just pointing out the facts. Who would you listen to....someone who has based their knowledge on thousands of years of experience, historical knowledge, ethnic teachings handed down for milennia and other sources or, some 'upstart' from the 21st century who just wanders in with his own unfounded theories who says you've got it all wrong? If it were me, I know what I'd be telling him. lol Another point of reference that might interest you is a Messianic Jewish man by the name of Michael Rood who has vids on 'the Secret of Solomon's Temple' on you tube. Have a look at what he has to say. It's pretty much in agreeance with what Derek Walker is saying but there's more to it again.
Brent Cairns (The current thread will be grammatically incorrect because I'm dictating it through my phone) once again this thread only reminds me of the fact that conversations over the Internet about belief systems always send us into a moot court where everybody's opinions are on trial. And, it's all A reminder of how foolish I have been to express my opinion openly and how irrelevant my argument and opinion really are. However, Respectfully I am not in disagreement at all with you about all your conclusion I am merely bringing to light the fact that Bob has some great points that should not be discredited on the basis of what you have so eloquently stated as concrete truth based upon Scriptures. You also seem to assume that I put Roman history above scripture. Not sure where you got that assumption. I can only make a conjecture that it has to do with my explanation of Roman history and how it sheds possible doubts and Great questions on the mainline assumptions of what scripture is saying about the topography of the land. Your conclusions and your position is a very popular and mainline position. We all know the facts, Anyone who's interested in the subject matter there is plenty to read on it. And we all know the scriptures that everyone is referring to in both this video and in your above lecture on the inerrancy of scripture over history. However, there were assumptions made a long time ago about what the Scripture said geographically about the topography of the land. Many times archaeology and historical document study has produced the truth of locations in question and actual changes in locations in the last 150 to 200 years throughout Israel. Many archaeologist use the Bible in tandem with what they dug up to validatetheir conclusion on dates and locations. It is not either or but juxtapose. Contrary to popular thinking, we, you read into those scriptures obviously through the glasses of man's historical opinions. The bigger question is do you see that? That is why it is important to humbly read the Scriptures and constantly ask questions. Truth survives the test of any question. In fact, what I have learned throughout my short history of 29 years journeying with Jesus, is that questioning the status quo only strengthens and re-strengthens and brings great-resolve to the truth. For one to make Quick conclusions about views that do not fit into their Christian box of interpretation of scriptures in my opinion speaks more about that person's trust in their intellect more than their faith. And I believe this is more erroneous than to consider both archaeology and current findings as wonderful tools to test the truths. I personally believe that Dr. Martin and Bob both have valid questions that do not get answered clearly in the Scriptures. Thus, as I originally stated in my explanation at the very beginning, I believe these questions should stay on the table. Like your opinion mine is just that- an opinion. If we combine yours and mine we can't even buy a cuppa coffee...
You only mentioned Josephus once and barely. His eyewitness accounts carry much more weight. Josephus said the Antonia fortress housed the Tenth Legion (not cohort) with its support personnel, that's 10,000 people. Where do you suppose the Tenth Legion was based if not the 36 acre plot now called the temple mount? Josephus said the temple was 600 feet south of the Antonia fortress. Josephus said visitors approaching Jerusalem from the North would not be able to see the Temple because the Antonia fortress blocked it's view and that the fortress was on higher elevation than the temple. Josephus said the Roman Fortress was the size of multiple cities. Eleazar Ben-Yair, the leader of Jewish Resistance at Massada said the only thing that remains in Jerusalem is that monument of the Roman Fortress. The pilgrim of Bordeaux who visited Jerusalem in 333 ad. said he climbed a tower of the church of the holy sepulchre, looked east and all he could see was a wall of the Roman Fortress. These are eyewitness accounts.
There was not time to mention Josephus much, but you have been misinformed about what he said. He did NOT say the Antonia housed a legion. The 10th legion was only based in Jerusalem after AD 70. Josephus only speaks of a 'tagma' = troop, not a legion. The Bible speaks of a cohort based at the Antonia. When the Antonia was built by Herod the local legions were based in Syria. Josephus locates the Antonia at the North West end on the Temple Mount, where there is an elevated rock scarp so indeed it did overlook the Temple, and it did block the view of the Temple. Josephus is a major reason why all archaeologists locate the Antonia in its classic location. Josephus' description of the Antonia was identical to his description of the mountaintop fortress of Herodium, which is nothing like a city. Josephus also said that Titus destroyed the Antonia to its foundations so his legions could get access to the Temple, which makes no sense on the city of david theory.
He already did, please everyone, open your eyes and see the archeological evidence and evidence from scripture. Hear the explanations of the Temple Institute.
@@jeroenvonk1898 Yes. The proof for the Har HaBayith is ua-cam.com/play/PLTD5mBMCnHBWClluZmsFfKBcmd9YNCHhc.html 1 and 4-8. www.dropbox.com/sh/jq1jmrqdxelye17/AAB6XRLgL4OZAIuoDFyWuf4Pa?dl=0
For God so loved the world that he gave his ONLY begotten son to die for our sins whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life! Lean on Yeshua in this horrible time!
Does the Gihon Spring work like the water spout out in Yellow Stone National Park, where it gushes automatically, like clock work? Would that shoot the water up to the temple area if it is higher up?
the strength of the spring is nothing like strong enough to do that. also we know that from 700BC the waters were diverted through Hezkiah's tunnel to the Pool of Siloam for the use of the city dwellers - so it was not used for the Temple. Also Isaiah talks about the gentle waters of siloam - not a mighty geyser.
Yes! That’s what it was originally but not now another metaphor from God that HE has The New Covenant ✝️ The Holy Spirit gushes up from our inner being to water those around us!
The historic size of the expanded temple mount completed under King Herod would NOT have fit in the city of david... especially since archeological excavations of these exact locations show structures other than the temple in these locations from that exact period. The temple mount is the actual temple mount.....
Why don't you listen to the archaeologists? Professor Mazar at present working in the City of David... the palace of David has been found with Phoenician pillars, for the Phoenicians helped in its building (2 Samuel 5). Look at the work of Dr Leen Ritmeyer.. and his book "The Quest". The temple mount is Herodian. Herod built this. What for? For the temple. The great stair way at the south-west corner of the Temple Mount, described by Josephus, was found in the excavations after 1967.
Linda Marquis because it is the place from which G-took the earth to make Adam the first man it is the place that Abraham sacrificed Isaac and it is the holiest place in the universe that's why
Bruce Levine Please correct me if I am wrong but G-D told Abraham to. go to Mt. Moriah - No mention of a place called Temple Mount. I m not saying there is no Temple Mount but to claim thats where G-D made Adam - I mean who was there?
Of course not! there was no temple 4,000 years ago. Israel didn't exist. Read the Scripture - in 2 Samuel 24:18 on is the account of David buying the property in preparation for the building of the Temple. At the time he bought it, the area was a threshing floor. Read about David's preparation for its building. 1 Chronicles 28:10-12+
I confess that I have not read every comment below, but I did watch the video 3 times pretty thoroughly. I see nothing addressing the statement of Josephus who said, looking to the south from the northern area of the Church of the Holy Sep. , he said as you walked south toward the north wall of the TM area you CANNOT SEE THE TEMPLE! Now I've never been there, but I don't think it would be necessary to understand what he was saying. If the temple were actually located on top of the temple mount, why couldn't Josephus see it from the Northern area?
again you have been misled as to what Josephus actually said. your source has fed in the idea of the viewpoint being where the church of the holy sepulchre is today, because it fits his theory. Actually if you read Josephus in context its talking about coming from the north - and indeed to the north of the temple Mount the ground rises higher (the peak of Mt.Moriah is where Golgotha is), so an army coming from the north cannot see the Temple Mount from the north until it gets over that hill.
Just to affirm - Josephus said no such thing (you have been misled). What he actually said was: Wars 5.246 "but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower of 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." Now I agree, walking from the north-west as is described here you cannot see the city of david, but not because the line of sight is blocked by the classic TM plateau (which some say was the Antonia), but because of the lay of the land (the TM plateau is not in the line of sight between the Holy Sepulchre and the City of David). However, Josephus says that the Temple can be seen from the north EXCEPT where the line of sight is blocked by the Antonia. So Josephus contradicts this novel view at this point, and he confirms the classic view. An alternative (and probably better) translation of this passage is: “The hill Bezetha was, as I mentioned, cut off from Antonia. It was the highest of all the hills, and its rising ground was encroached on in part by the new town; it formed in the north the only obstruction which obscured the view of the Temple.” (This translation was the basis of my previous comment, in which I mentioned armies by mistake). This translation indicates the hill Bethesda (which includes Golgotha) is the highest of the hills and hence blocked the view of the Temple from the north, while by implication the Temple could be seen from other northerly angles - which is certainly true in the classic view, but again manifestly untrue in the novel view, as Josephus is saying that if Bethesda was not there the temple could be seen from all northerly directions. Thus whether you interpret the Antonia or Bethesda as the obstacle Jospehus contradicts the city of david theory and confirms the classic theory. The careless way that Cornuke handles (manipulates) the original source by summarizing it as saying: “Flavius Josephus wrote that the temple could not even be seen from the north of the city of Jerusalem”, should cause one to be very careful before accepting any of his other claims, as to what Josephus and others say. He spins the meaning to fit his theory. I would recommend checking a contour map of Jerusalem if you have not been there - i show one within my longer video on this subject (the link is at the top of the Comments).
in my father s village, the threshing floor was just 50 m away from the house, from the whole village, and the elevation was tiny in comparison with the village, basically almost no elevation at all. but it WAS 50 m away from the village. cows were walking around this stone and they would walk over the wheat and around the stone.
Yes, I saw a video of a threshing floor in the middle of the village, right next the the house, only about 20ft x 20ft, with a donkey walking around it, tied to a pole. For the people that say that a threshing floor has to be way up high, and not close the the village, they don't know what they are talking about.
Mistake 1; God said on a mountain I will show you. Not on top of a mountain. Mistake 2; A threshing floor needs convenience and a light wind. To much wind is bad. The very top of a mountain is bad because it is not convenient and it has to much wind. Mistake 3; David lived inside the Gihon spring fortification as well as the palace so the "go up" on the threshing floor could be anywhere above the Gihon spring fortification or above the palace. Top of the mountain is not stated.
1. the Temple Mount is a plateau on Mount Moriah, the peak is to the north - where Golgotha is (where Jesus was crucified) 2. the dome of the rock is where the holy of holies was (on the local high point), not the altar. It was the altar that was positioned on the threshing floor, which is to the east of the high point and thus protected from the strong wind from the west - ideal for a threshing floor. Also threshing floors are never inside cities. 3. all those who hold this new city of david theory agree that the temple had to be on the top of the ridge (where the large stone building = David's Palace was discovered)- if you have been there it would be obvious to you that the temple or david's palace could not be on the steep slope - it makes no sense. It could not be built on top of the Palace because the palace continued operating after the temple was built.
@@DerekWalkerOBC You weren't there so you can't say for sure and this is probably your biggest mistake. You don't know what you don't know. ua-cam.com/video/6tzom66XhZ8/v-deo.html
All any of us can do is go on the biblical and archaeological evidence that is available - sometimes we can be more sure than other times, but in this case the evidence is very clear. the bible itself spells it out, then the Ark was taken out of the city of davide to be put in the temple on higher ground in 1Kings 8:1: "Now Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord FROM THE CITY of DAVID, which is Zion."
I do not know which area the temple was actually at but I do know that this man horribly misquoted and misrepresented the words of the people who believe that the temple was in the City of David. Much of what this man said is inaccurate. Wherever the Temple was God does not need his kind if help either. No threshing floor is ever on the top of a hill! Do you really think that they took their grain all the way to the top of the highest part of the area to thresh it? That is nonsense! They did not grow it there either. There are man made cisterns on the temple mount. No "living water!" By the written word of God the priests and every Jew had to be ceremonially cleansed by living water! That means water that is moving! The only place in Jerusalem that has moving water is the City of David. After the temple was destroyed the whole area was dug out. The word of God says that the temple of God would be like a plowed field. That is not what that platform that the Muslims built their mosque on looks like. The reason that the Jews believe that the temple was on that platform is because that is where the mother of Constantine said it was and she was a pagan that believed "voices" led her! There are more scriptures that indicate that temple was in the City of David then on that platform. There is much to be considered but misquoting and misrepresenting people who disagree with you is not the way to win your argument. I would advise people to read the other guy's book or watch the free videos on UA-cam and get the facts for yourself.
If you think i misrepresented their views you should give a specific example - i have been careful to study their material and understand what they are saying and its consequences (intended or unintended), as well as studying the source material and the actual experts. Threshing floors were in the fields where there was a decent breeze, certainly not inside a city - and the area of the temple mount would have been for fields so a threshing floor there is logical. It was originally a hill (not the man made plateau it is now). The threshing floor would not have been at the very top as you say because that would be too exposed to the wind but to the east side of the hill exactly where the temple altar was later on. This would provide a central location for the fields north of the city (the ground goes even higher to the north, west and east). As for the water, what you say is based on misinformation - there was in fact running water flowing to the temple mount thru aqueducts from fresh springs at bethlehem - we know this from achaeology and the jewish records (remains of the pre-roman lower aqueduct to the temple mount exist toay). the gihon supplied the city population not the temple. The plowed fied prophecy (700BC) was fulfilled after the destruction of the 1st temple in 586BC. Your info on Helena (mother of Constantine) is wrong in that she did not declare the location of the Temple but the Holy Sepulchre (where they believed Jesus was crucified). The jews would not get info on their holy site from her anyway. If you want the real facts then you need to dig deeper than books or youtube videos made by non-experts but read the books of the real professional archaeologists and historians. There is a lot of misinformation out there!
Ellie L Your analysis doesn’t hold water. 1. I agree that the threshing floor can’t be on top of a hill. And it wasn’t. It was on the southern slope of the mount Moriah. This solves your problem number 1. 2. Water source: Archaeologists have found that water was brought to the temple location through water aqueduct. This entered the temple through the Wilson’s arch and flowed southward as per gravity. Sir Charles Warren’s maps when overlaid on the southern Temple Mount matches nicely. Thus the temple got its running water. This solves your problem number 2. Read more from this website and try to challenge the evidences that have been presented. www.templemountlocation.com 3. See the below video and understand that the ancient Herodian road doesn’t stop with the city of David but goes all the way to the Temple Mount. ua-cam.com/video/Z5OaFxK14yc/v-deo.html&feature=share
Stones also a reference to leaders or people so just trying to describe to you people that everything will be destroyed if you found a one stone that wasn't turned over on to the other stone that doesn't mean it's false it's just a classical saying does somebody
The floor of the Dome of the Rock is not a threshing floor. It is pitted and uneven. A threshing floor needs to be flat and smooth. It is also the top of a natural protrusion that had fill dirt piled around to create a level spot for the Antonia Fortress. It would unreasonable to think an ancient farmer would carry sheaves of wheat up to the top of a protrusion on which to thresh it, only to have to lower the grain down as well. As for Mt Moriah being the location of the Temple, I agree with Mac Tek. ("This assumption that the Temple needed to be located exactly where Abraham was to sacrifice Issac doesn't make sense. If there is supposed to be some divine sacrificial connection, then why wasn't Christ crucified at the temple as well.") The Bible doesn't say Abraham went to Mt Moriah anyway; God told him to go to the LAND of Moriah, not "the" mount of Moriah. (Gen. 22:2 - He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”) I doubt the Jews would have known with precision which of the several mountains in the Land of Moriah, Abraham was on. I doubt it would have been any of the mountains that are within the immediate vicinity of the Jebusite fortress. As you read the text, somehow, it fails to mention a city near at hand with a bunch of Jebusites staring from the walls at Abraham about to kill Isaac. You'd think that would be worth mentioning. I don't think the Creator of the Universe makes as big a deal or gets sentimental about a singular location as we humans do. It was the ACT that's important - that Abraham was willing to go through with it and his faith, not where it happened. If you take that to the extreme of symbolic reenactments, then you'd have to be with Mac, and Jesus would have had to have been sacrificed within the Temple, on the altar, and His blood sprinkled on the Arc of the Covenant, which wasn't even in the Temple when Jesus was crucified. Your theory doesn't take into account that in Acts the Hebrew verbs clearly says the soldiers came DOWN to the Temple (being in a higher elevation) and taking Paul back UP. If the "temple mount" is the Temple, where was Fortress Antonia? In the sky? As for the threshing floor of the Jebusite necessarily being on top of the "temple mount" or even on a high place, that's just not factually correct. Threshing floors were not "always" on hill tops. Google "ancient threshing floor" and you'll see plenty of examples of them being in valleys. It was more about the wind flow & currents that determined the location. Wind can certainly flow down into valleys, especially replacing rising air off hillsides warmed by the sun. I'm not necessarily defending Cornuke or Dr. Martin. I'm not convinced the Gihon Spring is the location for the simple and logical fact that it was the main source of water for the city's residents. God wanted His temple built, but I don't think He wanted His people to die of thirst. It makes much more sense that Solomon built an aqueduct that had plenty of pressure to wash the Temple grounds. Aqueducts, even siphon aqueducts (that could cross valleys and go uphill -- as long as the "uphill" was lower than the origin) had been in use for a thousand years before Solomon.Siphon aqueducts were first used at the palace of Knossos on Crete. Founded in 7,000 BC, the first palace was built in 1,900 BC, about 1000 years before Solomon. Based on Josephus, the accounts of eyewitnesses at Masada (that the only thing left in Jerusalem was the Roman Fort), the Bordeaux Pilgrim, and many others, the so-called "temple mount" is most likely the Fort of Antonoia and not the location of the original or second (Hezekiah's/Maccabees) or third (Herod's). Finally, you say that Cornuke thinks he needs to "help God out" by conveniently saying the Temple wasn't on the temple mount. He's not saying that at all. If anything, I think what Cornuke and others say holds the real and rather beautiful hope: that God will change the hearts and minds of His chosen people and awaken them to the true location of the Mount -- just like He will eventually change their hearts and minds and awaken them to see that they've rejected their true Messiah in Jesus Christ. Which, ironically, means they don't need a Temple.
Great work. It would seem that many of the commenters did not watch the presentation through its entirety. (1) For those who harp about Fort Antonio, it was constructed so that it overlooked the Temple Mount. The ground it was built on may have been lower than Mount Moriah, but nothing substantial. For example, the Ophel, just to the south of the Temple Mount, is much lower than the ground were Fort Antonio was built. This is the very reason why the Romans made the Fort their point of attack. Think about it; if you were an occupying ruler would you let the Jews have a vantage point over your troops? Watch the whole presentation to learn about the Roman troop camps to the north of the fortress. (2). The Gihon Spring flows down to a pool at the southern tip of the original City of David (pre Hezekiah's tunnel). This is the pool where Solomon was anointed king. This is not the Pool of Siloam. That was added at a later date. There is no room for a temple there; not to mention there is zip archeological evidence of a temple being there. Finally, the Gihon Spring was not and is not a gushing spring - the kind of water source required to wash the Temple of blood sacrifices. (3) The presentation effectively debunks the proposed Cornuke temple site - not to mention the scriptural description found in 1 Kings 8:1. (4). One thing not effectively addressed in this video is that Islam has completely rebuilt the Temple Mount. The walls and even part of the foundation had to be reconstructed. This is obvious when you visit the site. (5). The remnants of the original Western Wall are actually 50 feet below where Jews pray today. Go on the Western Wall tour to the north of the prayer site, or to Archeological Park just to the south and this is very easy to verify.
the clue Jesus Christ give on Matt. 24:2 ...not one stone shall be left unturned....where does the wailing wall or the whole temple mount fit on this? The Jews regard Jesus as a Great Prophet but the "Christians" believe He is our savior and Son of God so do we believe what Jesus said in Matt.24:2? I do!
Brent is your whole argument based on the idea that buildings are not made of walls? Respectfully, you need to get a grip on Bobs theory. Right now it is obvious that you haven't looked into it. It seem like you are a "Minister" who has believed something so long you have a hard time accepting any fact or clue to the contrary. Before you reply here, do us all a favor and actually look into Bob Cornuke's theory. It does not require hydraulic calculations as the traditional view of the Temple on the Haram does.
You are reaching for straws. Do you read in Hebrew? Oh BTW. I watched your suggested video. 3 weeks ago. check it out I left a comment there. And no Fleisher does not indicate the actual height of the water. His statement is that the water head originated in the upper part of the city. You just have this way of twisting peoples words. It seems to come naturally for you.
Why yes I have Cairns. And if I told you "Demolish this building. Do not leave one stone on top of another. Throw every one down." and you went and left a wall of blocks 62' high.... well you would be fired. The very reason the orthodox rabbinate hold so tightly to the "Wall" as their Temple is that it conveniently makes a mockery of the words of Yeshua (Jesus) when he prophesied the total destruction of the Temple. Is that your aim as well?
well scribes inserted the story of the the adulteress woman that wasn't in the original text and another as well. NOT to accept secular witness with accurate to the foot measurements is ridiculous and foolish. Then there is the water issue that hasn't been explained. I think its near the gushing spring.. but as said God will sort it out as I won't be here to worry about the site.
What gives me the "Right" Cairns? It's called discernment my good man. And God himself gave it to me. Would you take my right to discern, which God has given to me, away? Do all religious groups who use the Bible agree on the meaning of all the verses? That is because we all have free will in our interpretation. God gave it to us all. It us up to the individual to decide if what he believes is correct, or what group to associate with. I do not believe that the "English" Translations are absolutely pure. (Do you remember a prophecy about restoring a pure language to Israel?) Nor do I believe your assertion about walls and buildings. I actually believe it to be a ridiculous train of thought to say that Jesus didn't indicate the "walls" would be destroyed too. I know it is not a salvation issue, but more an exercise in logic. It's about the location of the Gihon spring head (EZKL 47) BTW: I am not here trying to convince the Orthodox. I am here calling Derek out on his ridiculous and demeaning statements. In other words: I don't believe neither Derek nor you, when it comes to your understandings of the issues talked about in this video.
I am an evangelical Christian and I worked for the Israeli government in the seventies . Later I was contacted by the Jewish agency in London and asked to represent Israel in Yorkshire which I did after some years founded 'Friends of Israel' in S. Yorks . I have recently researched the history of Jerusalem for a poem which I have just finished - 'Song of a Golden City' . The poem opens with the conquest of Jebus from the viewpoint of David's followers . I would like to say that I broadly agree with most of Pastor Walker's ideas but need to tell you that the threshing floor was within the citadel of Jebus and was purchased by David because he considered it a dishonour to take property without proper payment . The Jebusites continued to live peaceably alongside the Israelites . The Gihon spring served the settlement but not the Temple area . There were other water sources on the higher ground . Don't forget that Jesus said that the day would be coming in which true worshippers would worship the Father neither in Jerusalem nor this mountain but in spirit and in truth . I am quite opposed to the reintroduction of animal sacrifice in Jerusalem as it would cause all sorts of problems in this day and age and is no longer necessary anyway . The rabbis have already begun to offer sacrifices and I am doing what I can to help the Jews realise that the sacrificial system is not applicable and certainly not as offered at present . God has allowed the Dome of the Rock to be built as a prevention of this and Moshe Dayan's decision in 1967 is quite in keeping with God's will on the matter . See that God's will is going to be fulfilled . I continue to work with the Jewish people . Please pray about this . Contact me - rosannestinchcombe@gmail.com
Thank you for taking the time to reply . Of course my inspiration is the scripture . I cannot go into this here - but God is already opening hearts and lifting the veil . I have just written a poem entitled 'Song of a Golden City' which outlines three thousand years of Jerusalem's history - just going into print and will be on Amazon soon .
If the threshing floor was in the Jebusite stronghold which David conquered, he would not have had to purchase it. The threshing floor was on the eastern side just below the top of Mt. Moriah. Threshing floors were not within cities. Solomon built the temple on Mt. Moriah on that threshing floor as David had been shown. The temple will be rebuilt and animal sacrifices will continue because 1. The Jews are still looking for the Messiah to come the 1st time and they believe that the temple and it's workings must be in place before Messiah can come. 2. The antichrist will cause the sacrifices to cease. Remember that the Jews don't believe that Jesus was and is the Messiah. It is believed by many that the rock under the Dome of the Rock or at least part of it is where the ark of the covenant stood in the temple not where sacrifices took place. The Jews won't accept a non sacrifice approach because it's crucial to their belief. Samaritans have for years continued to offer animal sacrifices.
And you would be EXACTLY, and PERFECTLY correct my friend. These lies about the Muslims or Arabs wanting Christians to buy into a false narrative is crap. It is the truth and the muslims would have no problem at all with the temple being rebuilt in the city of David, literally NOTHING is even there, but a few scant homes and fields. In fact, within last year they found what appears to be a small temple cleansing area, where animals for slaughter were stabled, right near the very spring used in purification, and is this on top of the mount. NO, it is right in the city of David where it is told.
This individual, Derek, is full of hot air and waffle. His opinions are just that, theory! All supposition and hot air, with no substantive proof whatsoever!
I think the key is in the words "In the mount" They believe they have found Joshua's Alter (Joshua 8:30) and it was not on top of mount Ebal but was half way up the slope "in the mount" not "on the mount". I agree that the threshing floor was not on top of the mount but was just outside the north wall of the City of David as Mac Tek stated below.
*The altar on Mt.Ebal discovered by Zertal is 1250BC - whereas Joshua is hundreds of years earlier. *Its important to note that the theory that the Temple was just north of the city of David is different from Cornuke's theory which is based on the fact it must be within the city of David. This new variation was created to avoid the obvious problem's with Cornuke's theory, but it still does not explain where Solomon's Palace Complex was. Its actually closer in principle to the classic theory than Cornuke's as it has the Temple to the north of the City of David, but it does not have many of the features that draw people to cornuke's theory like being within the original zion and close to the Gihon. *I agree the threshing floor was not and would not have been at the very peak - that is where the holy of holies was. The altar was built over the threshing floor, so it was a short distance to the east and lower than the peak which protected it from the full force of the winds. *in the interview i did not have time to cover all of this but i am bringing a more detailed video out in a few weeks
Thank you for your response Mr. Walker. This is a very interesting subject and whether Christians care about the temple mount or not, I think it is intertwined with future events. As you stated, Joshua is hundreds of years earlier but I would not think that time is a factor in Gods choice of location for his temples. That being said, I am not convinced one way or another about its true location yet but I will not try to pretend that I am as familiar with the subject as you are. I look forward to your more in depth video and will continue to use the tiny bit of wisdom I have been given - not much - to judge the facts.
Thank you Scott. I agree with you in a sense that the Temple does not have to be at the very top of a hill or mount as even the Temple Mount is not the peak of Moriah (see a countour map). I believe Jesus was crucified at the peak of Moriah (now called Gologtha - the place of the skull). Not many realise this is the northern extension of Moriah (this is disguised by extensive quarrying north of the Damascus gate. However my point is that if you have a built up city, it is normal to build a Temple on the high ground above the city, so that its elevation represents its greater holiness (closeness to God). The Biblical descriptions align with this requirement (e.g. Psalm 48:1-2). The Temple Mount, being the local peak of Moriah, fits this requirement perfectly.
how ? the romans destroyed the temple , where the records were kept. the temple was put on fire and we all know< that these scrolls were very easy to burn!
Not all the historical records of Israel were stored in the temple itself and, much is oral as well. Passed down through the generations. At one time, oral history was the way to teach ,pass knowledge etc because many didn't have the luxury of parchment or education. The Jews were very faithful in passing oral history and laws etc.
The key to the location of the temple, in my opinion, is the Gihon spring. Why the Gihon Spring? Because it is the only freshwater spring in the region. It was used for the priest's purification rituals. That is a significant key point in the debate. The question arises, does the law of Moses instruct that the temple must have a fresh water source?
Yes you are right about the need for fresh water but this only confirms the classic Temple Mount, which was fed by fresh water from the Ein Etam springs on higher ground near bethlehem through an aqueduct. This is confirmed by archaeology (it is a pre-roman aqueduct) and by jewish records. the Gihon on the other hand was too low in the kidron valley to function as a water source for a temple on the top of the city of david. In any case its waters were diverted to the south thru Hezekiah's tunnel to the pool of siloam for the use of the people of Jerulamem rather than for the Temple.
The big issue about the Temple mount is this no freshwater dedication by Solomon of the Temple thousands of animals we're slaughtered it takes a lot of water to clean that up it was a celebration water from the gihon spring flowed out of the threshold of the Temple all you have to do is Google it
its scientifically impossible for the Gihon in the kidron valley to be the source for the temple on top of the city of david ridge - water does not flow uphill! Moreover Hezekiah's tunnel took the Gihon waters to the Pool Siloam for the use of the city, so the water was not available for the temple. however the springs at bethlehem are above the level of the temple mount so they could flow downhill to it - so the jewish records and the classic view of the temple mount makes sense. The aqueducts go to the temple mount but none go to the city of david.
The Gihon is a rare siphon spring where the water gushes forth with pressure, and eye witnesses speak of the gushing source of water in the temple. Water can flow uphill metaphorically as long as the the outlet is lower than the source (hence a hose put in a pool can bend at the bottom but still drain the pool as long as it is lower than the pool surface). The source of the Gihon may be a higher mountain - some have suggested Scopus. I'm glad you mentioned Siloam - the faithful purified themselves in this very water before ascending through the City of David. This is what Aristeas wrote: "there is an inexhaustible supply of water, because an abundant natural spring gushes up from within the temple area." And there is only one natural spring in Jerusalem.
Larry Fries See the clear evidence that the Temple Mount was the true location of the temple. ua-cam.com/video/Z5OaFxK14yc/v-deo.html&feature=share The ancient road doesn’t stop at the city of David but goes all the way to the Temple Mount.
Were the aqueducts built in the time of King Solomon? I thought the Roman's built the aqueducts. One more interesting thought here, does Daniel 11:31 refer to the sanctuary (Temple) as a fortified Sanctuary in the time of Anti-Christ. My thoughts, great discussion. I am no dogmatic when it comes to archaeology concerning the temple mount I am still seeking the scriptures, and history to discover my own conclusion.
Those that propose the temple was on the temple mount have to believe that Solomon built aqueducts, even though there's some evidence the pools in Bethlehem were originally meant to irrigate crops. If there was adequate water supply to the city, then why why would Hezekiah go to such extreme work as chiseling through rock to re-route the Gihon? He did not want his enemies to have access to such abundance. What is interesting about temple mount traditionalists is they act as if there is nothing special about Gihon, yet we know the Tabernacle of David was pitched near it, it was part of the anointing of new kings (such as Solomon), and the water was captured in Siloam for ritual bathing, and was used by Jesus to perform a miracle on a blind man. There is no denying that Gihon is important.
Bob is not trying to help God out as you say. What he has done is to follow the facts of scripture in locating where the temple stood. If the temple is to stand where the 1st and second temple stood then the location of the temple needs to be clear. The Jewish people are very subject to traditions held by the elders. Jesus said for example (not one stone of the temple would remain standing, That the temple would be fully pulled down)He was correct,or do you call Jesus a Liar?
Actually Bob does use the present apparent impossibility of building the Temple as an emotional argument toward considering alternative locations so it is valid for me to address that. Also what Jesus actually said was that no stones of the temple buildings would remain - He did not talk about the retaining wall of the platform.
i have a question ? does the temple mount have running water ? because you need a lot of water for cleansing and washing away the blood of the animal sacrifices
Yes - there was an aqueduct taking running water from springs near bethlehem on higher ground direct to the Temple Mount - this is confirmed by archaeology and by the jewish records (archaeology confirms that this 'lower aqueduct' was pre-Roman. A Temple on the peak of the city of David would have had no water supply because the Gihon was too low (it is at the base of the hill) and its water was used to supply the needs of the city not the temple - its waters ran gently down to the pool of siloam in the southern end. It is worth noting that the bible nowhere says that the Gihon supplied the water for the temple.
It would bode well if the theorists would actually VISIT the site and study it responsibly before launching such theories. So much has been left out in this discusion that it is simply a bit ludicrous. On the other hand, I am certainly in favor of the creativity involved in such imaginings. Quite impressive!
I thought Jesus' prophecy was that no two stones would remain together. If the Temple was on the Dome of the Rock, then you have all the huge 2,400ft Temple Walls still standing. But if the Temple was in the city of david, then not two stones were left together. You have to decide: If you believe the Temple was where the Dome of Rock currently is, then Jesus was a false prophet, but if you believe Jesus' prophecy, then the Temple was in the City of David. Simple...
There were very few troops in Antonio...most of them were stationed on Mount Scopus where they had a great vantage point to view the temple mount and the city. Ever hear someone say "I'm going to "scope" it out ...that's where that comes from , Mount Scopus.
It is impossible to listen when this VERY ANNOYING arrogant lady rudely interrupts the speaker, interferes, and adds, and intervenes!!!!!!!! Stop her, let him speak!!!!!! I couldn't watch it till the end because of her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Lost Temple is at Golgotha where our father Jesus was crucified the Ark of the Covenant was 20 feet below that and our fathers blood ran down the crack and landed on the Ark of the Covenant because that signifies Jesus is the New Covenant
🎯 And that ark of the covenant (The mercy seat) I believe will play a HUGE part in the Abomination of Desolation. Even more so than a rebuilt temple (Which may or may not be built). The Mercy seat will be the center piece of the end times here on earth I believe. Perhaps what the beast does with the ark, is what brings forth God's wrath.
The man in this video knows nothing! He said that the temple couldn’t have been down in the City of David. There is two problems. The massive Roman fortress was where the so called wailing wall is today. It was the only building left after they destroyed the entire city! The entire city of Jeruselam was left with not even a foundation of any building left. To say that the wailing wall is the wall of the temple calls Jesus a liar! The Roman fortress was higher than the temple and Josephious spoke of two bridges that went from the fortress directly to,the temple so they respond troops quickly to Jewish up risings. Feet tall so that the Romans could watch over the walls of the temple to monitor the Jews. Where does this man say is it possible for the Roman fortress to have been if it was so massive as to be able to look down into the temple. Let’s not forget there were 8,000 Roman troops there in that fortress! Plus the support personnel.
You say i know nothing but the knowledge to which you refer are simply assretions (of Martin/Cornuke) that you have heard that have no basis in fact. I have answered all your points more fully in my other answers to youtube comments but i will make some brief comments. (1) it is the bible that says the temple was outside the city of david because the ark of the covenant was taken out of the city of david when it was placed in the temple. (2) You assume a massive roman fortress because of the claim that a legion was stationed there from when it was built by King Herod but this is a myth - history is clear that there were no legions based in israel in the time of Herod. The legions came to fight in Syria in the Jewish War and only then from Ad 70 was the 10th legion based in jerusalem and even then Josephus is clear that their camp was on the higher western side of the old city not where the temple mount is. The bible speaks of a cohort (500) based at the antonia and josephus uses practically the same terms to describe Herodium as he does antonia. (3) Jesus said all the temple buildings would be levelled which they were - the temple Mount walls are just the retaining walls for the temple platform, which is different. The wailing wall was not the wall of the temple but a retaining wall of the temple platform upon which the temple was built. The Romans tried to dismantle the retaining walls but half way down the huge stones were just too hard to remove - later others built up the walls again. Also remains of first century houses have been discovered in Jerusalem. (4) Josephus says that Antonia was on the north-west corner of the temple platform (at the intersection of the northern and western colonnades) which is indeed on higher ground than the temple because there is a natural rock scarp there. It was built upon this great roak to a good height and had an excellent view down upon the Temple area. The 2 bridges are another myth - Josephus never used the word for bridge - he was plainly speaking of the double western temple colonnade that connected the antonia to where the temple itself was.
Josephus confirms the classic temple mount. He says that the Antonia was a the North East corner of the Temple Mount and gives its distance from the Temple buildings. Also you are incorrect to say only the Antonia was left. Josephus tells us that the Romans destroyed the Antonia to its foundations as part of their final assault on the Temple Mount. Josephus also describes the base of the roman 10th legion as being near the Citadel (Jaffa gate) on the west side of the old city, not on the temple mount. We did not have time to deal with Josephus, but if you read Josephus for yourself you will find it supports the classic temple mount.
Derek Walker Is that so? Josephus clearly stated that the walls of Jerusalem were destroyed. So perhaps you can clarify if you can in contrast to your theory. It is time for us to realize that it is the modern scholars who are wrong, not the eyewitness accounts of Josephus and Titus. Jerusalem and the Temple were indeed destroyed to the bedrock just as they relate. Regarding this, there are other sections of Josephus’ accounts to show that he was not exaggerating. Josephus was keen on telling his readers that all the walls around Jerusalem were leveled to the ground. Note his observation: "Now the Romans set fire to the extreme parts of the city [the suburbs] and burnt them down, and entirely demolished its [Jerusalem’s] walls" (War VI.9,4.). This reference shows that all the walls, even those enclosing the outskirts of Jerusalem, were finally leveled to the ground. To reinforce the matter, Josephus said elsewhere: "When he [Titus] entirely demolished the rest of the city, and overthrew its walls, he left these towers [the three towers mentioned above] as a monument of his good fortune, which had proved [the destructive power of] his auxiliaries, and enabled him to take what could not otherwise have been taken by him" (War VI.9,1).
Dr. Eilat Mazar, in 2010, discovered shortly into a dig in the Ophel at the base of Temple Mount region (south of the temple mount [BUT NOT UNDER IT] and in the area of the suspected location of the temple), A rare and ancient trove of coins and jewelry has been found buried near Temple Mount in Jerusalem dating back to the 7th Century. The haul includes a total of 36 gold coins etched with images of Byzantine emperors and a 10cm medallion etched with a Menorah, Shofar made from a ram's horn, and a Torah scroll. Among the unprecedented find, made by Dr Eilat Mazar of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, was also a 3,000-year-old earthenware jug inscribed with what is believed to be the earliest example of written text ever discovered in the region. The discovery was made in the ruins of a Byzantine public structure located in the Ophel region - between the city of David and around 50 metres from the southern wall of the First Temple. She found an inner gatehouse for access into the royal quarter of the city, a royal structure adjacent to the gatehouse, and a corner tower that overlooks a substantial section of the adjacent Kidron valley. Many of the coins found featured emperors ranging across a 250-year including Constantine II to Mauricius. As well as the Byzantine gold, pottery discovered at the site is believed to date back to the 10th Century, around the time of King David. There were six ceramic jugs found in total and one had an ancient inscription engraved onto the side believed to be the earliest written text ever found in Jerusalem - predating the existing earliest engraving by around 250 years. She is also the same archeologist who discovered David's palace where the clay bullas (seal impression), with names from the Bible on them, were found. She also has stated that she uses the Bible as a map in order to know where to do a dig.
She may, I'm not really sure. But what I do know is that her work with her grandfather, and the work she has done on her own, point to the fact that the temple was south of the temple mount. That's were her grandfather, and now she, keep finding the treasures of the temple...NOT UNDER the temple mount, south of it!
The Byzantine era was not during the time of King David but after 330 A.D. David lived from around 1,000 B.C. The items you described had nothing to do with the temple eras. The 3,000 year old jug would be no evidence at all to show that the temples were elsewhere other than the temple mount. It's just a jug and various pottery. She couldn't actually be finding temple treasures because they were carried off as booty by successive invaders. Anything dated after the building and destruction of Herod's temple would discount her claims of the temple being elsewhere anyway. The items would have to be dated pre 70 A.D. and much earlier not later dates. Even so, they would have to be items relating directly to the temple not some coins or jewellery for example. There has been evidence come to light during excavations in 1967 ish that prove the temples were on the temple mount as Ps. Walker explains.
you are clutching at straws. Mazar does not come to your strange conclusion, that she found evidence for the temple being on the ophel. Byzantine times were hundreds of years after the temple was destroyed so that is irrelevant. In any case in the classic theory, in solomon's time the city extended north from the city of david covering the whole area up to the temple mount so we would expect there to be discoveries on the ophel.
I think that YOUR conclusions make no sense. Why would the temple be built so far away from the water source that they needed so badly? You simply are repeating what others have repeated without any real evidence to back those conclusions up. Finding a bell from priest in the dirt is confirmation that the temple was located on the temple mount. It just means that it fell off somewhere in Israel and someone found it, that's all. However, I do believe the evidence is there that proves the temple was to the south of the current temple mount where the water source actually exists. It also meets the descriptions...the exact descriptions that Josephus gave in his writings about the temple sitting on the crescent between two valleys, putting it to the south of the citadel. The temple mount meets the descriptions EXACTLY of where the Roman citadel was located. He described it as HUGE, almost a city unto itself. I just don't believe that you've proven your claims. As far as my description above, that is taken directly from an archeology report where they found the coins, etc. And the Archaeology in the History Department at UNC Charlotte is digging at the Mount Zion site now and they ARE finding treasures and priestly homes, right next to where the temple most likely WAS located. Which makes sense, the priests would have lived within walking distance of the real temple location. This discussion will most likely never be resolved until Yeshua returns again. Personally, I'm satisfied by the eye witness account from Josephus. I'm less impressed with all of the guess work from people, like yourself, thousands of years later claiming that they know better than someone who was alive during those times. Unless you can find a way to travel back in time and use your own eyes, I'm going with the historian from that time. But you just keep trying...maybe you'll eventually get it right some day.
ahaha the temple was built below mt zion to the sw and above the springs ahahah.. both mt zion and temple mount or dome of rock to the northeast were always higher
the sealing of the gate shows that the muslims hundreds of years ago believed that the Temple was on Temple Mount which makes sense because the tradition based on the Bible says Messiah will land on the Mount of Olives and go directly into the Temple and the Peak of Olives is directly east of Temple Mount, NOT the city of david.
Derek have you really read all of Dr. Martin and Bob's material? And, have you watched the latest videos and interviews of the archeologist digging there now? I noticed in the interview the lady interviewing you had to correct you a couple of times. It is always easy to take a position of antithesis, especially if we are looking for many youtube views or a platform. Let us be very careful. I believe Bob is on to something, and maybe ground breaking into significant steps to finding the temple's actual location. The city of David is being continually uncovered, more will be brought into light really soon. Your video is permanent for all to see, you have chosen to take a position back on the higher ground. Your arguments are really no greater in evidence than his, except modern tradition.
Jakob toews from what I remember during the destruction of Jerusalem in 79AD fire broke out in the temple and the ornate gold filled temple melted down and got between the stones of the temple. In order to get at the gold the Roman soldiers basically dismantled the entire temple down to the foundations. Not one stone was left on top of another. I believe that was Josephus’ account of what happened.
If the Israelites will build the temple in the city of David where I am convinced , is where the original temple was built it would sure take the wind out of the Muslims sails.
Stop pulling stuff out of your behind. Not one stone will be left on one another... means all of it buildings and walls. No one would have seen the walls of the temple as not being part of it.
Sorry Mr Walker, it's quite apparent that you're wrong on this. The Scriptures are very plain as to what was left of the temple after the Romans destroyed it. Several ancient historians also were quite specific that there was nothing left. Jesus said that not one stone would be left upon another. So, in a nutshell, either you are wrong, or our Lord was a Liar. I'll go with you are wrong.
If you read what Jesus actually said it was that the buildings of the Temple would be totally destroyed - which they were. He said nothing about the retaining walls of the landfill which expanded the mount upon which the Temple was built. The walls you see today like the wailing wall were not part of the Temple itself. When the Bible speaks of the Temple it always means the Temple - not the surrounding structures.
We will have to agree to disagree, there's far too much evidence to the contrary, starting with the scriptures, and going on through Josephus and others who made the point that the only structure left in Jerusalem was Fort Antonia. Everything else was "as if it had never been".
I think you are making the mistake of taking everything said by certain people as fact without checking it out. Josephus says the Antonia was destroyed by the Romans, and that after the destruction of Jerusalem the 10th legion set up camp on the higher ground on the west side near the Jaffa Gate where a section of wall was left standing and a couple of towers that had guarded Herod's Palace (in the present day christian quarter). Nowhere does he say the only structure remaining was the Antonia.
Actually no I'm not. I've done my own research, and what has been believed by alot of people just does not add up. We'll continue to disagree on this point, but, in time, the truth will come out. Whether the Temple is rebuilt on the site called Temple Mount or in the Old city of david is really moot. The fact of the matter is, it will be rebuilt. Shalom.
That is simply incorrect - i have read the relevant parts of Josephus. i think that is just something you heard somewhere but you did not check it against the original source - but i do invite you to prove me wrong by giving the relevant reference in Josephus.
You were doing so well until the 47 minute mark, then you lost it with the sacrifice's starting again and God allowing it for a 3 1\2 year tribulation, Hosea chapter 6:6 read it "I desire mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. And lets not forget that Christ shortened that 7 year period for the elect's sake, lest no flesh would be saved, Mark 13:20 read it, and in Revelations chapter 9:4,5 he shortened it to 5 months, that's 2- 21\2 month periods. But hey, now you know, other wise first rate on the site's and locations of the temple, thanks.
Titus gained access to the temple through the fortress of Antonia: "Now, when affairs within the city were in this posture, Titus went round the city, on the outside with some chosen horsemen, and looked about for a proper place where he might make an impression upon the walls: (259) but as he was in doubt where he could possibly make an attack on any side (for the place was no way accessible where the valleys were, and on the other side the first wall appeared too strong to be shaken by the engines), he thereupon thought it best to make his assault upon the monument of John the high priest, (260) for there it was that the first fortification was lower, and the second was not joined to it, the builders neglecting to build the wall strong where the new city was not much inhabited; here also was an easy passage to the third wall, through which he thought to take the upper city, and, through the tower of Antonia, the temple itself." (Josephus, Wars 5.257-260)
Three ancient tombs and a first century synagogue all point to two squares of streets 300ft & 600ft wide, the same size as the temple precincts according to Josephus, right in the heart of the City, just 300 meters west of the dome of the rock. Just saying.
Think what you want but it doesn’t make sense that Solomon would build the Temple in the area of King David’s palace and homes of the time but location was on the Temple Mount.
No, hes presenting actual evidence refuting the made up claims by others based on nothing other than blind desire to have the temple not be the same location of the dome of the rock.
its all in God's timing. the fact is that God allows His Temple to desecrated and destroyed if His people turn from Him has been seen in the past and will be seen in the future with the abomination of desolation
The anti-christ will confirm THE covenant of between the Jews and God. It's not talking about the antichrist MAKING A COVENANT OR AGREEMENT with the Jews. I believe the Ark of the Covenant and the Cornerstone will be discovered after the Ezekiel 38 or Psalm 83 war.
Jim Garvey The Apostle John describes seeing the Ark in heaven in Revelation 11:19. "And the temple of God in the heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunders, and an earthquake, and great hail.". As John is describing the end times, the possibility exists that God has already assumed the ark into his heavenly temple.
Camella I agree with you. But if God could take the Ark up to Heaven then I believe he can also send it back down. It would cause the Jews to rebuild the Temple because it must be house in the Holy of Holies ok. God Bless and good luck, something BIG comes this way. 😃
It was discovered in a cave under a pile of rubble . research the word hudna ,A hudna (from the Arabic هدنة meaning "calm" or "quiet") is a truce or armistice. It is sometimes mistranslated as "cease-fire". In his medieval dictionary of classical Arabic, the Lisan al-Arab, Ibn al-Manzur defined it as: "hadana: he grew quiet. Mecca Agreement makes only a Hudna False Peace Truce Possible!The anti Christ confirms this.
Jim Garvey; But there is no reason to believe that the anti-Christ could not make the covenant after the Psalm 83 and confirm that agreement after the Ezekiel 38 war. The Anti-Christ could easily confirm his own covenant with many people.
The earthly ark was described from the Original which was in heaven. It is here somewhere on earth. and yet we are also told not to bother to look for it because it will not be found... so... well.... we'll see!
In 2020 , archaeologists found that Solomon's pools that fed the temple mount cisterns were constructed by the 6th Roman legion. This destroys the narrative that the temple mount was the original temple site.
I am a Christian in the USA! I believe the Temple belongs in the City of David. If you educate yourself the Bible makes it very clear. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord.
The opposite is true, the City of David is specifically not where the temple was built. Read 2 Chronicles, it was not in the City of David and was on the threshing floor of the Jebusites on Mt Moriah. Threshing floors are always on flat ground. This isn’t hard to figure out that the Temple Mount itself is the location that makes the most sense. I used to believe the City of David theory but it’s obviously wrong after checking the Bible against the theory. What Cornuke likely found was the Tabernacle location, not the Temple
Dear@@narrowistheway77,
Yes, the Scriptures clearly eliminate the City of David as the location of Solomon's Temple.
Be Well, DZ
Dear @Jesus Loves,
The Scriptures clearly eliminate the City of David as the location of Solomon's Temple.
2 Chron. 5:2-5 They brought "the ark of the covenant of the LORD
out of the city of David,"
The Ark was taken "OUT" of the City of David; To where ?
" they brought up the ark, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels
that were in the tent; the Levitical priests brought them up."
These items were taken "UP" ! If you come out of the City of David, there is only one direction that leads "UP" (all other directions go down) Only by going north can you go "UP". Going north leads "UP" towards the top of Mt. Moriah. This is where Scripture says the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah.
"Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on
Mount Moriah, where the LORDa had appeared to David his father, at
the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan
the Jebusite." (2 Chron. 3:1)
Scripture clearly teaches that the Temple Solomon built, was not located in the City of David, but on the Temple Mount, on Mt. Moriah were God wanted it to be.
Be Well,
DZ
Mount Moriah is where Abraham went and where Solomon built the 1st temple. The temple mount still had the exact dimensions of Solomons temple and the walla now are from Herods expansion.
@@narrowistheway77and you knowingly call Jesus a liar not to mention that you also call Josephus a liar too.
Jesus said that NOT ONE STONE WOULD BE STANDING UPON ANOTHER. Stop eating the lies.
It's clear from the scriptures where the Temple was built and it wasn't on what today is called the Temple mount.
Dear @ GBUK101,
"Clear from the scriptures ... wasn't on ... the Temple Mount " Really ??
I think Scripture is quite clear that the temple(s) was some where on the present Temple Mount.
I would love to see your evidence for such an assertion and ..................
where do you think the Temple was built according to Scripture ?
Be Well,
DZ
WHERE THE TRUE LOCATION SHALL ALWAYS BE RESPECTED ACCORDING TO WHAT HAS BEEN CODED IN THE ORIGINAL ARC OF THE CAVA.369
Dear@@niktic1895 ,
Hello !! Thanks for the response.
"Jerusalem".
Of course I would agree the Temple was built in Jerusalem, that is very clear in Scripture and the Temple Mount is in Jerusalem.
"down in the valley".
I would not agree that the Temple was built in the Valley. Reasons:
1. The Scriptures clearly tell us the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah.
"Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in
Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORDa had appeared
to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on
the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." (2 Chron. 3:1)
2. When the Temple construction was finished, the furnishings (Ark Of the Covenant tent of meeting, Holy Vessels, etc.) for the Temple were taken "up" to the Temple on Mt. Moriah.
"and the Levites took UP the ark." (2 Chron. 5:4)
"And they brought UP the ark, the tent of meeting, and
all the holy vessels that were in the tent; the Levitical
priests brought them UP. " (2 Chron. 5:5)
"to bring UP the ark of the covenant .... " (I Kings 8:1)
"And they brought UP the ark of the LORD, the tent of meeting,
and all the holy vessels that were in the tent; the priests and
the Levites brought them UP." (I Kings 8:4)
Taking the Temple furnishings "UP" is what we would expect to hear it the Temple was on Mt. Moriah. If the Temple was in the valley they would have been taken "down".
3. The Temple Mount is on top of Mt. Moriah where the Temple was located. We know this because of the clear historical provenance and tradition of the Jewish People, And the very strong archaeological evidence that supports the ancient location of the Temple on the present Temple Mount.
"City of David"
For those who accept Biblical Authority, the idea that the temple was located in the City of David is eliminated by Scripture. Scripture clearly tell us that when the Temple construction was complete the Temple furnishings were taken "OUT" of the City of David and "UP" to the Temple. Mt. Moriah was a couple thousand feet "UP" hill from the City of David.
" .... to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD
OUT of the city of David, which is Zion. (2 Chron. 5:2)
"..... to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD
OUT of the city of David, which is Zion. (I Kings 8:1)
The Scriptures clearly tell us these items were taken OUT of the City Of David, to take them to the newly finished Temple on Mt. Moriah. The Temple was clearly NOT in the City of David.
The Temple would not have fit in the City of David.
You said the Temple was in the City of David, down in the valley. How can that be because the City of David is certainly NOT in the valley. Your assertion is self-contradictory.
The Scriptures, the Tradition fo the Jewish People and others, the Provenance of History and the strong Archaeological Evidence are all in agreement that the Temple (both First and second Temples) were built on Mt. Moriah, on the present Temple Mount.
I would consider anyone disagreeing with the strong evidence concerning the actual authentic location of the Temple on the present Temple Mount, to be people who either deny the Scriptures, or just unaware of how strong the evidence really is.
The Scriptures are pretty clear ! I don't think you can offer any evidence contrary to what the Scriptures tell us.
Be Well,
DZ
Jesus... you know Jesus... o.k. He said there would be not be one stone will he left upon another.. Soooooooooooooooooooooooo why do many of the Jews and many others go to and pray at the western wall.. It seems to be an intact wall to me? Did Jesus lie? Is Je❤sus a liar? And where on the temple mount is the fresh, running water needed for the cleansing, and animal sacrifices?.. There isn't any fresh, running water at the temple mount.. The only running water IN all of Jerusalem IS the Gihon Spring and that is in the City of David.. don't fight truth.. it leads nowhere.. Tradition and misrepresentation does NOT= truth
Dear @@rickstrole9634 , Hello ! Thanks for the response !
NOT ONE STONE
"Not be one stone ....... " Yes that was what Jesus predicted ! If you read the text carefully, you will notice that Jesus was speaking of the Temple and other buildings on the Temple Mount (Mark 13:2, Matt. 24:1).
Notice, Jesus specifically said these stones "every one will be thrown down" (Mark 13:2, Matt. 24:2, Luke 21:6).
Of course in 70 AD the Roman legions under Titus destroyed the Temple and the other building of the Temple complex, leaving not one stone upon another. Titus took all the stones of the Temple and other building of the Temple complex, and "threw them down" off the Temple Mount, completely fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus.
Today on the eastern side of the Temple Mount we can see some of those stones from the Temple and/or Temple complex buildings, were they have laid for for nearly 2000 years. Unfortunately there is a Muslim cemetery on the eastern side of the Temple Mount that prevents any archaeological excavations in that area. If we could excavate, most archaeologists expect to find evidence of the Temple and Temple buildings.
However, this is not the problem with the southern side of the Temple Mount where we have excavated and found evidence of the Temple complex, that was thrown off the Temple Mount. Most notably the Trumpeter Stone, which includes an inscription identifying the artifact.
The Temple Warning Inscription, was found off the northern side of the Temple Mount. This makes sense because this is where the Fortress Antonia joined the wall of the Temple Mount and there would be gentiles in the complex of the Fortress Antonia. This inscription provided a warning to gentiles to not not to proceed further onto the Temple grounds.
Of course Josephus describes the destruction of the Fortress Antonia by Titus, in order to gain entrance to the Temple Mount and the Temple, from the Northern side of the Temple Mount.
THE WESTERN WALL
The western wall was emphatically "NOT" a part of the Temple, or the buildings of the Temple complex. The western wall was a part of the Temple Mount on which the Temple once stood. The Jewish people recognize that this is the closest place to where the Temple once stood, that they has access to. That is why they come there to pray.
The destruction of the Temple Mount was not a part of the prophecy of Jesus. Jesus specifically was referring to the Temple and the Temple Buildings, not the Temple Mount !
So Jesus did not lie. You have misunderstood what the text clearly speaks about. Someone mislead you with some theories of men, and you didn't check the text of the Scriptures to find the truth of the matter.
FRESH RUNNING WATER
Point # 1. Where does the Scriptures say fresh, running water is required ???
Please provide the verse(s) where it clearly says that ! (I look forward to your answer)
Point # 2. Archaeologist Dr. Scott Stripling is the excavation director at Tell Shiloh (Biblical City of Shiloh). Of course we all know that Shiloh was the location of the tabernacle during the period of the Judges (before Solomon's Temple was built). It, in essence, functioned as the Temple during the time of the Judges and at that time thousands of animal sacrifices were made, apparently without any fresh, running water, as you claim was required. Dr. Stripling confirmed the nearest "fresh, running water" was about 1/2 mile away from the location of the Tabernacle. Water to cleanse the sacrificial area was hauled in from the spring 1/2 mile away. Water was hauled in to the Tabernacle at times during the Exodus in the desert also.
You said, "The only running water IN all of Jerusalem is the Gihon Spring".
Are you aware that there are some archaeologists hold the idea that Solomon's pools, 5 miles southwest of Jerusalem (at a higher elevation than Jerusalem), was the place of origin of an aqueduct that flowed to Jerusalem ? There is some evidence for this idea. It could be that Solomon provided water flowing directly down hill, from a higher elevation onto the Temple Mount.
You said "the Gihon Spring and that is in the City of David".
Those that understand the geography of Jerusalem understand that this is not completely true.. The Gihon Spring flowed out of the side of the hill that The City of David was located on. The Spring does NOT flow uphill to the City of David. When people in the City of David wanted water from the Gihon, they had to go down hill, get the water, and haul it up the hill to the City of David. The archaeological findings, tradition and the Scriptures provide some information supporting this idea.
This means that Hypothetically, if the Temple were located in the City of David (as some who do not know the Scriptures propose), water would still need to be hauled up to the Temple; it would not flow up hill to the Temple Mount.
Of course, the evidence eliminating The location of the Temple in the City of David is overwhelming, and we are very certain the Temple was not located in the valley, where water from the Gihon Spring could flow down hill to the Temple
The Scriptures clearly and specifically say that the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah (2 Chron. 3:1) and everyone who is well acquainted with the Scriptures knows the present Temple Mount is on top of Mt. Moriah.
It is clear that when Solomon finished the construction of the Temple, the Scriptures tell us that the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple furnishings were carried "OUT" of the City of David (so Scripture clearly supports the idea that the Temple was NOT located in the City of David), and "UP" to the Temple (2 Chron. 5:2, 4, 5).
Now from the City of David, if you go west, or east, or south, you will go "down hill" (look on any map to confirm this fact).
However, if you go north from the City of David, you will go "UP" in elevation, and guess to where one would go if they went in that direction. -- to the peak of Mt Moriah, where the present Temple Mount is located. This location is where Scripture, archaeology, history and tradition says the Temples (both Solomon's and Zerubbabel/Herod's) were located.
I think those who think the Temple(s) were located somewhere other than Mt. Moriah (where the present Temple Mount is located) probably have not studied what the Scriptures say about the issue, and have huge misunderstandings about the witness of not only the Scriptures, but also archaeology, history and tradition.
The Temples (both Solomon's and Zerubbabel/Herod's) were certainly located on Mt Moriah - the present Temple Mount. The objective, verifiable evidence is really over whelming. I could give much more evidence but what I have presented is insurmountable.
I hope this clarifies some of the issues for you.
I have found that people who support an idea contrary to that the Scriptures, archaeology, history and tradition say, usually do not want to respond to an explanation like this, but if you have any contentions or questions, I am more than willing and able to discuss this issue with you.
I am interested in how you answer the many questions that are contrary to your theory.
Be Well, DZ
The opinion of Bob Kornuke's motives is incorrect. He is on to something of immense proportions. The Apostle Paul was in the Temple when a ruckus broke out and fearing for Paul's safety the Captain of the Temple guards called for Roman soldiers to take Paul into protective custody. In the Book of Acts Luke recounts the Romans came down to the Temple from the fort. Which is clearly impossible if the Temple was at the summit of Mt. Moriah. The temple was indeed built on the threshing floor to the north of the old city walls on the ophel mound which is located on the southern flank of Mt Moriah. As Josephus also noted the Temple overlooked the City of David while the Roman fort overlooked the Temple. The tradition of men have blinded us to the evidence in the Bible.
71superbee3 Nonsense...the Ophel has been excavated and there is no possible way the Temple could have been located there. Fort Antonio was above Herod's Temple. Most of what is visible to the eye today is only 500 years old, but it is clear that the ground to the northwest of the Temple (where Fort Antonio was located) is higher ground...not to mention the foundation it was constructed upon. Have you ever been to Jerusalem? By the way, for those who keep pushing the idea that the Temple was in The City of David I suggest they read 1 Kings 8:1
I guess the words of Josephus are a mystery because another version says the fort was {80ft} above the Temple. The Bible also says this holy site will be "divided" in a sharing arrangement.
You are correct.
Bob Cornuke has never said or implied that God can't make anything happen.
All he is pointing out are facts, backed up by Scripture and historical evidence.
71superbee3 What I learned. Also there is a spring of water 💦 there
it was in the name of "tradition" that the Jews had Yeshua the Messiah crucified, and what happened after that? in 70 ad the temple was destroyed fulfilling Yeshua prophecy "there shall be left no stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." meaning the temple was to be razed and leveled to the ground erased! and it was so, Roman General Titus legions did just that . the Jews post temple rabbinical "tradition" has no bearing on the location of the temple because they do not know where it was. Jewish temple worship violates the commandment on idolatry because the temple was made the object of worship not the place of worship to God.
Ken Kline did a very well done documentary on this subject. He refers to Josephus' writings which makes the most sense. Josephus was alive during this time so he was an eye witness to where everything was located. Josephus gives a very detailed written map that allows the reader to understand that the temple mount was not the site of the temple. I'm not familiar with the other experts on this topic, but I do think an eye witness is an important factor.
You should read Josephus. He describes the temple as being on the Temple Mount.
DZ
Josephus said Fort Antonio was to the north of the Temple and that there was 600 feet between the two complexes. You don't have room to build 600 feet to the north of what is called the Temple Mount., there is room 600 feet to the south. Which is likely where the Temple was located.
Josephus is really confusing though, it's like a 3rd grader trying to describe something. He isn't really clear in some of his descriptions.
@Navigator001 he was also Flavian. The order of Constantine. Whether to accept his writings as truth, are a 50/50 shot. Some of his things are proven out, some are off slightly... and some are way off, set for a narrative. I think this description though, if isolated line by line, and set with a pertinent vantage point, can be accepted. The Bible and several other writings of the time are problematic at the very least for the current temple mount location. The new testament says... not a stone left unturned. The writings say, the location was plowed over like a farmers field. I'm still researching now though, and haven't made a full determination, but the evidence is building towards the lower site.
You should read the Bible instead. It is on Mount Moriah.
13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”
David bought the threshing floor on Mount Moriah. We don't know that was the exact same place as the ram, but it is on the small mountain.
Josephus' dimensions are 115 m from East to West, Western side 35 m and Eastern side 42 m, with four towers. The ROCK ON WHICH THE FORTRESS WAS BUILT (dome of the rock)was 50 cubits high (22-31 m). The height of the fortress itself was 40 cubits (18-25 m.) and it had 4 towers, one in each corner. The height of three of the towers was 50 cubits and the fourth tower was 70 cubits: "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. (239) In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament, and that anyone who would either try to get up or to go down it, might not be able to hold his feet upon it. (240) 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. (241) 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; (242) 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; (243) 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 (244) (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; (245) 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. There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod's palace; (246) but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower of 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. (247) 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." (Josephus, Wars 5.238-247)
Dear @pfehrman,
The part about a "legion" being stationed in Jerusalem is a mistranslation. The first time a legion was in Jerusalem was when Titus sieged Jerusalem were multiple Roman Legions in 70 AD. During the siege, the Legio X camped on the Mt. Of Olives. AfterJerusalem fell the, Legio X was garrisoned at Jerusalem with their main camp on the Western Hill, near the fortress at Herod's Palace.
So when a Roman Legion did have orders to stay in Jerusalem, they did not camp on the Temple Mount, but instead across the valley from the Temple Mount.
They could not stay at Fortress Antonia because Titus had Antonia destroyed from the foundations, in order to gain entrance on the Temple Mount from the northern side. That is why the Fortress Antonia does not exist today - Titus destroyed it (as described by Josephus). Only the Temple Mount remains.
The Tenth Legion (Legio X Fretensis) was stationed in Caesarea Maritima, the seat of the Roman procurators in the region, not Jerusalem.
DZ
If you ask a guest to come speak, don't speak over him when he's trying to speak. Honor him and let him speak.
It’s Really bad. She Asks a question. Then proceeds to answer asked question same time he’s trying to answer. Yeah. Yeah yes yeah. PLEASE JUST BE QUIET. LET HIM TALK
Alot of "interviewers" do that...invite an expert only to show how much smarter they are by answering their own questions.
It is impossible to listen when this VERY ANNOYING arrogant lady rudely interrupts the speaker, interferes, and adds, and intervenes!!!!!!!! Stop her, let him speak!!!!!! I couldn't watch it till the end because of her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This lady literally needs to let the Interviewee speak rather than interrupt him.
James Newton yeah. I can’t watch any more. Lol
Patience, Gentlemen. And Respect.
It is impossible to listen when this VERY ANNOYING arrogant lady rudely interrupts the speaker, interferes, and adds, and intervenes!!!!!!!! Stop her, let him speak!!!!!! I couldn't watch it till the end because of her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Women tend to talk over each other, but it’s too confusing in an interview.
That woman should shutt up.
It would be a blessing to have Mr. Walker and Mr. Cornuke get together and discuss using the Scriptures.
I suggest to send Cornuke to the Israelmuseum and the Davidson Center first, so he can see remains of the surroundings of the Temple buildings with his own eyes.
It would a coffee klatch of clowns!
The spring of living water flowing from beneath the throne has great symbolism. The priest didn't just wash in the stream to clean themselves physically it symbolized being cleaned by the spirit of God before you can come into his presence. The stream flowing out from the temple was symbolic of gods spirit flowing out to the whole world to cleanse it of sin. Not just any stream but almost supernatural stream the Gihon (The Gusher) that only flows on the surface after it departed the temple. The temple was destroyed to the foundations' anything less is calling Jesus a liar.
Truth
Martin's book explains that Mt. Zion was razed during the Hasmonean era (see Josephus), and they gave a westerly peak the name of Mt. Zion, which is why there was confusion about where the original City of David was located. He also states that Moriah is the range, not a specific mountain. Recently, archaeologists found a packed surface that they can't explain near the Gihon, and we must ask whether it could be a (or the) threshing floor. Additionally, this passage from Ezekiel 9:2 shows that the temple was near the upper gate of the city: And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar." Then they start at the temple and go throughout the city to deal withe the evil men. Also, the psalm quoted in the video also shows that the city and Mt. Zion are the same thing. "Walk about Zion, go around her,
count her towers,
13 consider well her ramparts,
view her citadels,
that you may tell of them
to the next generation." Psalm 48
If you read the Bible, it says that David looked UP, went Up to the threshing floor and purchased it. The floor was not in the city because David would have not needed to purchase it and David did not go down to near the Gihon spring to the floor which would not have been near or on the town's source of water. Neither did David's palace later look down on the temple. Solomon also built his own palace and the residence of Pharoah's daughter whom he married and other buildings between David's palace and the temple which was all referred to as being UP not down in the old city of David. Threshing floors were outside towns and cities in rural areas usually at some high point so that the wind could carry away the chaff. Gihon is way down low. God told Abraham to go to the mountains of Moriah to the place God would show him to offer his son as a sacrifice. The place he offered on the altar was where David bought the threshing floor and built an altar to the Lord to sacrifice on and also where the temple was built by Solomon where the angel of the Lord stood beside the threshing floor. It is also the same mount ( Golgotha) where Christ was crucified although that was further up. The sacrifices all tie in together. When Solomon built the temple he also extended the walls to encompass it along with the extended city and it was called Zion. You don't change the city name just because you have extended it. After that Mt. Moriah was recognised as Zion which is Jerusalem. The temple was not built near the Gihon spring as it is down too low for a start and temples and other places of worship were built in high places.
Let me reply to a few points. First, you are incorrect that David looked up and saw the threshing floor. Rather, he looked up and saw the angel standing or hovering between heaven and earth with his outstretched sword ready to kill throughout Jerusalem. He then fell to his face, after which, he got up and went to the threshing floor, which probably was north of his location. The threshing floor may have been just outside the primary city walls, but there were several walls at various stages around the hill of the city. Going up doesn't really prove that the threshing floor was on the so-called temple mount since there are a number of locations in the City of David that one could go up from and not go up a different mountain. In fact, Nehemiah 12 shows that David's palace was to the south of the Water Gate/Gihon Spring because the group that dedicated the wall passed it before reaching the Water Gate, thus, David could have gone "up" from there. Second, the temple was most likely below the Akra that the Greek's built, which then became the fortress Antonia. The Akra reportedly was found just north and west of Gihon spring, but south of the so-called temple mount, and it was said to overlook the temple. I've personally seen the remains of the Roman camps at Masada, the largest of which looks almost identical to the size and shape of the Haram. We know that Herod enlarged both the temple and the fortress, the latter of which he built to impress his patron, Marcus Antony. Third, the temple was built above the Gihon or up the hill, which has one outlet midway down the eastern hill of Jerusalem that was stopped up during Hezekiah's time, but also has a subterranean conduit up the hill, which was rerouted later to to bring water to the pool of Siloam through Hezekiah's tunnel. The Gihon is a siphon spring that periodically pushes water up and out, and so was funneled up through to the temple, and the eye witness Tacitus stated there was an inexhaustible spring within the temple confines. Fourth, you are correct it is "mountains of Moriah" because it is a chain, rather than one mountain. Jerusalem is synonymous with Zion, and it is the Mt. of Assembly or of the Congregation. Fifth, there was a square near the Water Gate (which led east down and out to the tower over the Gihon spring) which is where Ezra read the law, and it was where the people assembled, which would likely be near the actual temple. According to Josephus, Mt. Zion was later razed and leveled during the Hasmonean period, which is why the City of David became known as the Lower City. The fact a different hill was later called Zion should show that things were moved and renamed. Sixth, Solomon was anointed King at the Gihon Spring and David pitched his tabernacle near the Gihon, which housed the Ark of Covenant and joyful worship in song. It should tell us there is something special about that place. Seventh, God Himself showed the pattern of things by having the Israelites encamp around the tabernacle - He wanted His people surrounding Him (or God With Us), not to be away from them on a distant hill. This same patterning is shown during the Feast of Booths, when men live in temporary shelters to commemorate living with God in the desert. Booths were created in that same square and through Jerusalem as reported in Nehemiah - not up the hill near to a more distant temple outside of the assembly. Priests also lived surrounding this area on the Ophel and below. Eighth, the rock under the Dome is in no shape or form good for a threshing floor, but does seem to fit the description of the rocky outcropping that the Fortress Antonia was built around. Ninth, and lastly, archaeologists have found a compacted surface near and above the Gihon for which they have no explanation. My suggestion is we should consider whether they found the threshing floor. The threshing floor was never built over because it had been owned by a Jebusite who were impossible to evict and some lived in the City of David, and this is exactly what they say about the compacted surface found - it exists completely without association with other structures. It doesn't make sense for efficiency to move tons of stalks of grain out of the valley where it was grown all the way up a mountain past the city, and then move the grain back down to the people who would grind and bake it - no, that threshing floor would be ridiculous if it were moved well out of the reach of people who need it.
When the guest is talking the lady needs to close her mouth. She is talking over him and neither can be understood. Lost information because of this. SAD.
plus it'srude
It is impossible to listen when this VERY ANNOYING arrogant lady rudely interrupts the speaker, interferes, and adds, and intervenes!!!!!!!! Stop her, let him speak!!!!!! I couldn't watch it till the end because of her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've listened extensively to both sides of this argument and am convinced that Cornuke is closer to the truth. Mr. Walker conveniently glosses over some things and completey ignores eye witness and historical records of Josephus that have been proven to be accurate and well accepted - except when it comes to the location of the temple. He also chooses to believe second and third hand sources of information that have their basis in tradition. I'll stick with Cornuke and Martin as they rely much more on all scriptural accounts, historical records (including eye witnesses), archaeological findings, and scientific method.
Josephus' description of the two colonnades is not clear. He never said that it was two side by side going 600 feet down to the temple. He did say the Fortress Antonio was situated at the corner where the north and west colonnade met. Which is one going south and one going east.
Have u seen the archeological findings as well ?
Did u read the entire josephus of how huge this temple was ?
Have u read the pamphlet written by the last Mufti about Bet El makdus?
Let me guess prob not
ABBA Blessed me with this knowledge in 2017, it’s a blessing to see the naysayers open their eyes and see! May your journey be blessed and beautiful!
The real Temple was totally destroyed as prophesied by Jesus, not one stone shall stand upon another. Either Jesus was wrong or Mount Zion (City of David) is the real location of the Jewish Temple.
Matthew 24:1-2 "Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
Cheryl Mason ...same understanding here....it may sound funny but I think Jews and Moslem are fighting at the wrong place which is Temple Mount.
There is no stone standing upon another... there is a heap left against the Temple platform, s/w west corner. They are partly blackened from the fires. I hope you are not assuming that the Temple platform is part of the buildings! It isn't!! When the fires started, despite the order of Titus, the soldiers tore the stones apart to get the gold. Golden panels hung on the outer walls of the Temple building...
The Jews know their own history!! Why do you think that you are right?? The Western Wall where Jews pray is the closest that they can get to where the Temple was.
Beulah Edwards, I'm not trying to argue with you, but I do doubt the temple mount is the correct place simply because God's Word tells us that no stone would remain upon another. Clearly the Western wall proves that a very many stones remain upon another. So that location cannot be the correct location.
As far as the Jews knowing where everything should be, that isn't correct. They were out of their land for a very long time; for more than a thousand years. They had to relearn about their land when they returned and much of that is through archeology. I do, personally believe that Josephus did describe the valley of the cheese mongers as being the area where the temple had been located; much closer to the water resources. And I do believe it makes more sense for the threshing floor location as well. And wasn't it Titus that had mount Zion torn down and leveled?
If what Josephus wrote was accurate, and I believe it is, then the citadel was larger than the temple mount and was connected by two arms (bridges). The towers too are described differently than the model that is displayed in Israel. So the Jews aren't perfect in a recollection that they can't have since they've been gone for so long from their land...and of course no one remains alive today who lived then to tell them anything at all. Josephus is as close as you're going to get to that.
If you read Ezra 3:1-6 you will see that sacrifices were begun before the 2nd temple was even built. They began with only an altar. Is it possible that the same could happen today? If the sacrifices began before the temple was built it would take many by surprise. It is something to consider, God tends to do things in ways very different than people expect. A temple is going to be built but is not needed for the sacrifices to begin, note verse 6 of Ezra 3.
A key quote from this interview is, "You don't need to help God". I am watching this in Sept 2020. I even fall into the trap of believing, "No one can possibly displace the Dome of the Rock". I don't think that anymore. The temple is where the temple is. God will have his temple where it will be. All of our worries over geopolitical ramifications of this or that doesn't matter. God will have his way. It will be with authority and power. His power will displayed to all, including those who believe an those that don't.
It’s funny because the god of Israel and Allah are the same. Abraham is also the father of Muslims also remember he had a child with his Egyptian slave. It will be world war 3 if anyone tries to tear down the Temple Mount
Seriously Derek, "Helping out God"?. How about " It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to seek it out." The very existence of the intact walls which still exist from the original construction of the Haram would turn Yeshua's prophecy into a lie. If you believe in the supremacy of Yeshua (Jesus) then the "Temple Mount" cannot be the sight. That is all I need because I am not going to black out those words with a big sharpie or nuthin.
The big difference between "Cornukey" (as you call him) and you, is that I am way more satisfied with the scholarly study and interpretation of the evidence that Bob Cornuke (it is pronounced Cornook) has put forth. It was actually painful to watch you two draw loose conclusions to some seemingly applicable verses, while Bob is actually on the ground doing the measurements and taking the evidence in a logical direction. All you have is a speculative view with not much to back it up but tradition. I can't believe you filled up a full hour with all your... well nuthin really.
You say that we are helping the Muslims. I say that you are helping perpetuate the whole christian religion as a myth. Never let the facts get in the way, just have faith right? Riiiight!
Michael Fairbanks; Here is a video you might like to view by a Hebrew scholar; who shows with many scriptures that what is called the site of the Temple Mount today is totally wrong." Bible Proofs of Temple Location".
Thanks Paul. If that is the man in the white and black stripe shirt, He is a good study.
Peace
Brent, If the Temple location is where Bob says it is, and not on the Haram Al Sharif, the gusher would be right inside the Temple. Conversely, if the Temple stood on the Haram, that would require some hydraulic engineering.
Have you examined Bobs theory? Something tells me no.
In case you didn't know, Gihon does in fact mean gusher in Hebrew. I simply transliterate the name. And your point about the aqueduct coming from Bethlehem is silly. Most know this is a Roman artifact, and as Bob proposes, just like the fortress that it had supplied. Without this there would be no water supply to the so called "Temple Mount". So the Temple on the Haram is more of an engineering problem than you point out would be for Cornukes theory. How much farther up the hill can water move. Shall we put the Temple on the very top of Mount Moriah? Bernoulli's equation is silly to interject here as though you know something. I has more to do with pressure differentials within a horizontal pipe of varying diameters, much like an air venturi . However when David built the Altar it was right beside the Gihon Spring. If it had been on the Haram, where did he get the water from? The Roman Aqueduct? again that is just silly, because it wasn't there in his day. So that is a problem for you. The top of Moriah is even more of a problem for you.
So it seems to ,me that you are just repeating the same stuff Derek here has said like Martin is heretical, and that may be the case. But it is clear that you haven't grasped the theory that Cornuke has proposed, but you're just coming out swinging because it doesn't fit into your traditional view
The Bible and Jewish records show that the temple was indeed on the temple mount. It was fed water from an aqueduct from the pools of Solomon at Etan near Bethlehem. The aqueduct was well before the time of the aqueduct that Pilot later built.
Mr. Derek Walker around 12:40 in your video you said it all, God will bring it to fruition, I agree with you 100 percent. God had all of this laid out before the world was and God knows what He is doing. If we pray and ask God to show us where this location is, I know God will show us, if He thinks it's important for us to know. In my humble curiosity, I would like to know where it was located too for the sake of simply knowing. And even though I agree that God could use an earthquake, God always has a way that is so beautiful about the way He does things and right now as I watch these Jewish folks digging around that area, I can't help but see the hand of God at work on them. God bless you Brother and thank you for the video, I pray Father God bless you in all that you do.
Don't you think that Jesus is seeking the lost among the enemies of the Jews as well as among the Unbelieving Jews themselves?
I pray that the eyes and understanding of these lost peolpes will be opened and that they would repent and believe soon! MARANATHA LORD JESUS
@@marionchase-kleeves8311 absolutely, I believe that King Jesus died for everyone and this includes Jews and their enemies. I pray for God’s Holy Spirit to move their hearts to repentance and to receiving Christ.
The "temple mound" is not where the temples were. That is Fort Antonia, home of the Xth Legion of Rome. The very legion that destroyed the last Temple. As our Creator King Yehoshua Ha'Meshiach, Immanuel, prophecies.
Exactly, it housed a Legion and it's supporting staff that would come to around 1100 men/women.
That’s what I believe to be the case as well.
@@Skylancer1967 Whoops check your sources, a Roman legion was closer to 10,000 than 1,000.
So if the temple was built on the Temple Mount then where was the the sacrificial alter positioned on the Temple Mount ?
Seriously can the interviewer let the interviewee finish a statement!!!
Yes, this is the biggest mistake interviewers make since going from television to video. They think it's like the days of TV and commercials where they are accustomed to hearing the guest constantly interrupted by the host due to predetermined times for commercial breaks. With video there are not predetermined commercial breaks. If there are any commercials, they are layered on top. So, the host will ask for weeks and months to get this important guest to visit their show. Then, the host will talk over their guest and constantly interrupt them. This greatly distracts the audience and frustrates those listening who wants to hear the guest make one uninterrupted statement. The audience also wants to hear the guest and glean their knowledge. In addition, the interview is not a social conversation, so the host should not be constantly saying something back for every sentence the guest makes. This is another common mistake hosts make, thinking they are engaging in a social conversation, they are not.
The job of the host is to only plod the guest with the least amount of questions to glean their knowledge and keep their story progressing. Please try this. At first, it will seem awkward, but you will receive so many kudos from your audience, you will be amazed. How do you do this? First, introduce your guest and welcome them, make any beginning announcements, but keep them short. Then, allow your guest to talk and tell their story, uninterrupted. Let them complete their story as long as they are not rambling. Give them the number of minutes in advance of how much time they have to complete the overview of their story. Sit on your hands if you need to keep from interrupting. Do not complete their sentences. You don't always say the same thing as your guest when you try to complete their sentences, again disrupting the guest.
In summary, if you remember nothing else I've suggested, remember and do this one thing. -- Allow the guest to complete their initial story and then you can ask questions. This one change will win you such appreciation from your audience, you will hardly believe it. I remember when the longer video interviews first began on YT, this one popular interviewer would allow his guest expert to fully tell their story about their experience or their area of knowledge without one interruption. In reality, we discovered he was trying to learn to manage the live chat during the time his guests were speaking as he didn't have many moderators yet. He was trying to copy down significant questions from the chat. But, I noticed he received the most positive comments about his interviewing technique allowing these guests to speak their full story or expertise uninterrupted, Then, we discovered he wasn't using some great secret technique for interviewing skills, it was because he was multitasking, but it worked beautifully.
Lastly, this host did not commit the two worst mistakes of being a host, but they bear mentioning. The absolute worst mistake the host can make is when they have invited the most wonderful guest expert, and they notice that they have larger than normal numbers of audience attendees listening, they get excited about the numbers and decide they want to make it all about them with this larger audience, so the the host spends the whole time talking on and on about themselves or what they think about the topic the guest expert is supposed to be talking about, and the guest is hardly allowed to talk. The audience members may be screaming at their media device at this point to let the guest talk, let the guest talk, please!!!! Then there is the very worst case scenario, and I've witnessed this. The very worst case happens when the host is talking so much, that the guest gives up trying to tell their story, and begins interviewing the host instead as they can barely get a sentence in, or worse yet, sits in silence, while the minutes wile away with the host getting high off the sound of their own voice losing all awareness that they even have a guest expert they have been trying to invite to their show for days, weeks, months or years.
I know it's difficult for a host to read constructive feedback about their performance, so I hope the producers will read this and let her know as gently as possibly. This was three years ago, so she may have already have received the feedback and incorporated it. However, people are very interested in this topic right now as we live in the end of the current age, as the guest and host have noted, and with everything feeling so uncertain, people will be seeking out this topic. I hope this feedback will be taken in the spirit in which it was intended, only to be helpful in getting the message out as clearly as possible.
She interrupts too much with her chatter!
@@anneteller3128 short and succinct 🧐
This assumption that the Temple needed to be located exactly where Abraham was to sacrifice Issac doesn't make sense. If there is supposed to be some divine sacrificial connection, then why wasn't Christ crucified at the temple as well.
The threshing floor was located just outside the north wall of the City of David. That is where the temple was built. When Soloman built the temple, he had to extend the city walls just a little further north. He was not going to enclose the entire mountain with walls. In fact those walls were discovered on the Ophel.
There is no water supply at the Temple Mount. The only source of water was at the Gihon spring which had a vertical channel that gushed water upwards to the temple.
Additionally, eyewitnesses clearly placed the Temple lower and to the south of Fort Antonia. In 70AD it was utterly destroyed to the point no one would ever have known a temple was on the location.
*Christ was crucified at Golgotha - the northern peak of Mount Moriah in fulfilment of Gen 22:14, but the city of david is not Mt.Moriah.
*Yourview that the temple was north of City of David is different from Cornuke's which says it was within the city of david - but on your view there is no place for Solomon's Palace.
Solomon's Palace complex had to be on the Ophel north of the City of David, the Temple had to above that on the Temple mount.
*There is no evidence of water gushing up 50 feet through a channel - the gihon is not a geyser. Moreover from Hezekiah in the 1st temple and throughout the 2nd Temple the water of the Gihon was diverted to the Pool of Siloam by Hezekiah's Tunnel, so there is no way the Gihon supplied water to the Temple. Jewish records are clear that the Temple was supplied from the Pools of Solomon near Bethlehem by an aqueduct.
*on the classic view the temple mount is lower and south of antonia - i think you are referring to cornuke's twisting of Josephus who said that only the Bethesda hill north of the temple mount obstructed the view of temple mount from the north which is true of the classic view. Somehow Cornuke changed this to mean that the Temple could not be seen from the north.
Psalm 14
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.
The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread
and do not call upon the LORD?
There they are in great terror,
for God is with the generation of the righteous.
You would shame the plans of the poor,
but the LORD is his refuge.
Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people,
let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad.
Daniel Johnson This video scares you!
A burnt offering is a form of sacrifice made as a tribute to God. A burnt offering was entirely burnt on the altar.
Mac Tek your answer to the certification of Christ Jesus and where it is designated is in Leviticus 1:11 Northward of the sheer instructing north without or outside the camp in the fulfillment of the law and prophets. In this case that was the same place where Abraham offered up Isaac north of the threshing floor where the temple was built. The problem is the misinterpretation of where Isaac was offered as to the place of the ark of the covenant. These two are not synonymous nor the same but different appointments. One of God's dwelling place separate from HIS sacrifice for sin, who became sin, unable to be in the presents of God at that moment. Like two ships passing in the night. THAT was Golgotha the place of the scull, Calvary.
The temple itself was only 60 cubits high, 60 cubits long, and 30 cubits wide. How big was the original temple mount?
Said absolutely no one
500 cubits square
Although modern reconstructions often depict the fortress as having a tower at each of four corners, the historian Josephus repeatedly refers to it as the tower Antonia, and stated that it had been built by John Hyrcanus for storing the vestments used in the Temple.[1] However, Josephus states:
"The general appearance of the whole was that of a tower with other towers at each of the four corners; three of these turrets were fifty cubits high, while that at the south-east angle rose to seventy cubits and so commanded a view of the whole area of the temple."[2]
Some archaeologists are of the opinion that the fortress was only a single tower, located at the south-east corner of the site;[3] for example, Pierre Benoit, former professor of New Testament studies at the École Biblique, having carried out extensive archaeological studies of the site, concurs and adds that there is absolutely no [archaeological] support for there having been four towers.[4]
Josephus attests to the importance of the Antonia: "For if the Temple lay as a fortress over the city, Antonia dominated the Temple & the occupants of that post were the guards of all three." Josephus placed the Antonia at the northwest corner of the colonnades surrounding the Temple. Modern depictions often show the Antonia as being located along the north side of the temple enclosure. However, Josephus' description of the siege of Jerusalem suggests that it was separated from the temple enclosure itself and probably connected by two colonnades with a narrow space between them. Josephus' measurements suggest about a 600-foot separation between the two complexes.
Why did the two 600-foot aerial bridges disappear from the pages of history? They were mentioned in two 19th-century books written by scholars Lewin, Sanday & Waterhouse, who probably read Josephus in the original Greek, whilst others, later relied on William Whiston, an 18th-century translator. We cannot know if Whiston was influenced by traditional thinking but he probably decided that Josephus had erred when he gave the length of the aerial roadways as a furlong (Stadion), so Whiston used the words “no long space of ground”. War VI, 2, 144
Based upon Jerusalem’s topography and the impossibility of placing Fort Antonia six hundred feet further north of the alleged Temple Mount, Whiston’s translation obscured their existence, although there are ten references in Josephus to these bridges.
Prior to the First Jewish-Roman War, the Antonia housed some part of the Roman garrison of Jerusalem. The Romans also stored the high priest's vestments within the Fortress.
During the defence of Herod’s Temple, supposedly the Jewish fighters demolished the Tower of Antonia. Josephus is adamant the Jews had no chance of destroying a huge Roman fort with 60-foot walls, defended by thousands of Roman troops. It’s the destruction of the two 600-foot aerial bridges that is meant. It fulfilled the prophecy: “When square the walls, the Temple falls.” Roman soldiers then hastened to construct siege banks against the Temple’s north wall. Battle lasted until they seized the sanctuary. (Wikipedia)
Josephus describes the Romans as the ones who destroyed the Fortress Antonia, not the Jews. He describes the Fortress Antonia joining the Temple Mount on the northwest corner. He also says one of the towers of the fortress was left standing and was used by Titus to observe the battle for the Temple Mount and the Temple itself. Afterwards this tower was also destroyed and nothing remained of the Fortress Antonia. Josephus' description of the siege of Jerusalem does not suggest that the fortress was separated from the Temple Mount. He suggests they were adjoined to one another.
The two 600-foot aerial bridges - where is this in the writings of Josephus ?
Be Well,
DZ
The Temple was in the City of David..when jesus put mud on the blind man eyes he then told him to go over and wash his Eyes, Gihon Springs..
yes - the waters of the Gihon were diverted to the pool of siloam at the south end of the city of david through hezekiah's tunnel. If anything this means the temple could not have been watered by the gihon, because the waters went instead to siloam for the people of the city to use. Also the gihon is down in the valley and so could not send the waters uphill to the top of the city of david ridge - water does not flow uphill - there is nothing like enogh water pressure and in any case it would be dissipated once hezekiah's tunnel was built.
Oh my God! Which Bible says that Jesus asked the man to go and wash himself in Gihon! You people change even the scriptures
CPOAU Never. The temple cannot be in the city of David. See the below video and understand that the ancient Herodian road doesn’t stop with the city of David but goes all the way to the Temple Mount.
ua-cam.com/video/Z5OaFxK14yc/v-deo.html&feature=share
That is no proof. The still existing Hulda Gates are proof, just as the threshing floor of Arauna. Take care, you are misled, just as Cornuke.
You don't understand what Jesus did. The blind man had to walk through the entire City of David to reach the pool, proof of faith! At the same day the priests went down to get water for the water offering at Hoshana Rabba, the seventh day of the feast of Tabernacles. They found a way straight from the Temple to Siloam, the Herodian road. And they found a tunnel from the corner of the Templesquare to Siloam. I walked through it.
I accept the temple was built in the city of david however the temple area known as the Antonia fortress & where the dome of the rock is Why build huge massive foundations on this site especially when this area has the bedrock surfaces under the dome of the rock .
Are we supposed to believe that the size and shape of the Mount area being virtually identical to the stats of a Roman Fort was a coincidence?
actually roman forts varied in size quite considerably. moreover the temple mount is not typical - it is not a rectangle but trapezoid in shape.
@@DerekWalkerOBC That is no valid argument. The small Fort Antonia isn't big enough to house enough soldiers. Rom wouldn't have ruled Jerusalem with a handful of soldiers.
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?
@@SpotterVideo Yeah, and the shape of the supposed "temple mount" is the same shape as Roman fortresses. They didn't destroy it and us why it's still standing today. Lots of wars took place at that fortress since then and so some of it is ruined.
@@jamescobrien Here is another piece of evidence.
The following is from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, who was a teenager during 70 AD. In section 12 he said there was a spring of never-failing water in the Jewish temple. This puts the location of the temple at the Gihon Spring.
The Jews
Book Five (1-13) of The Histories by Tacitus
"11. So after encamping, as I have said, before the walls of Jerusalem, he paraded his legions in formation before the eyes of the enemy. The Jews, marshalled close under their walls, were in a position to venture further out if they were successful and had a place of refuge ready at hand in case of defeat. Titus sent against them cavalry and some cohorts in battle order, but the encounter was indecisive. Then the enemy gave ground, and for some days thereafter fought a succession of engagements just in front of the gates. Finally, repeated losses drove them behind the walls. The Romans then concentrated on an assault. After all, it seemed beneath them to wait for hunger to do its work on the enemy, and the troops actually asked to be allowed to risk their lives. Some did so because they had real courage, many from mere bravado and a desire for rewards. As for Titus, his imagination dwelt on Rome, wealth and pleasure: it would be long before these dreams were realized if Jerusalem were destined not to fall in the immediate future.
But the city occupied a commanding position, and it had been reinforced by engineering works so massive that they might have rendered even a flat site impregnable. Two lofty hills were enclosed by walls skilfully staggered and forming re-entrant angles designed to expose the flank of an attacker. At the edge of the crags was a sharp drop, and a series of towers dominated the scene, 105 feet high where the rising ground helped, and 135 or 120 feet high on the lower contours. (19) These presented an impressive appearance, and to the distant observer seemed to be on a level. There were further walls inside around the palace, and a conspicuous landmark was the lofty castle of Antonia, so named by Herod in honour of Mark Antony.
12. The Temple was like a citadel and had its own walls, which had been even more laboriously and skilfully constructed than the rest. The porticoes around it constituted in themselves an excellent defensive position. To these advantages must be added a spring of never-failing water, chambers cut in the living rock, and tanks and cisterns for the storage of rainwater. Its builders had foreseen only too well that the strange practices of the Jews would lead to continual fighting. Hence everything was available for a siege, however long. Moreover, after Pompey's capture of Jerusalem, fear and experience taught them many lessons. So taking advantage of the money-grubbing instincts of the Claudian period, they purchased permission to fortify the city, and in the days of peace built walls meant for war. Already the home of a motley concourse, its population had been swollen by the fall of the other Jewish cities, for the most determined partisan leaders escaped to the capital, and thereby added to the turmoil. There were three different leaders and three armies. The long outer perimeter of the walls was held by Simon, the central part of the city by John, and the Temple by Eleazar. John and Simon could rely on numbers and equipment, Eleazar on his strategic position. But it was upon each other that they turned the weapons of battle, ambush and fire, and great stocks of corn went up in flames. Then John sent off a party of men, ostensibly to offer sacrifice but in reality to cut Eleazar and his followers to pieces, thus gaining possession of the Temple. Hence-forward, therefore, Jerusalem was divided between two factions, until, on the approach of the Romans, fighting the foreigner healed the breach between them."
If the temple was built in the city of david then why did the Jews build the Temple Mount foundations with huge stones some are 600 tons for the base The Temple Mount foundations were laid down 3000 years before the Roman’s made it into there fort.
You are stupid
People forget that when Jesus said ''no stone shall be left upon another'' the conversation was about THE TEMPLE , not the city or the foundation of the temple. Remember, they were looking at the temple when the conversation took place.
Please read Luke 19 before you make such a statement. Jesus wept over the entire city's destruction.
And you forget that Josephus said the also wiped the city off the map completely . It wasn't just the temple but the city walls, homes and the buildings . They left nothing standing except the Roman fortress.
It makes no sense to leave the foundation intact, when all the melted gold seeped into it. Gold was the reason that stones were upturned.
The elevator that dropped the Ark is plainly visible on the mount.
Actually Jesus said, "do you see these buildings.." plural.
It is on the site of the Temple Mount, on Mount Moriah.
Extremely fascinating! I totally agree with the new theory. In fact , I've watched another video - The Coming of the Temple, which also refutes the theory of the Dome of the Rock being the original site of the first and second temple. I believe that archaeology is playing a profound role in supporting the Bible, and the more archaeological finds are uncovered, the more the supporting evidence.
Thank you very much for your video! God bless
But...the archeologists are all in agreement that the temple mount was the site of the previous two temples...if there was an once of credibility in what Martin and Cornuke are saying, then you would have seen articles published in the Biblical Archeology Review.
Great presentation WOW! good Job pastor Derek..kudos for thriving in patience in face of this terrible host who interrupts all the time...Good Lord!
It’s so amazing knowing we are living inside a story, God’s story
The temple was never on that mount. That’s the fortress Antonia and was never the location of the temple.
Why can’t you believe Jesus and Josephus?
Jesus never made stupid statements He was and is very specific and Jesus Christ said that not one stone would be left standing upon another. Don’t you see all of the stones standing upon another? Scripture also says that where the temple was would be plowed like a field and it would have a forest growing on it.
Why do you choose to support lies that call Jesus a liar?
Robinson’s arch is simply the fortress Antonia end of the causeway that went over to the REAL Temple and the steps that Paul was carried up are still there on the side of the old Roman fortress.
Oh and you people that like to say you checked the Old Testament, tell me where the cisterns are mentioned in scripture? There’s NO cisterns under the real Temple because God had the Temple located by artesian water. The clean pure water had to come up out of the ground for the sacrifices to be clean. The aquaducts and the cisterns under the fortress Antonia prove that it was NEVER the real location of anything but a fortress and pagan temples.
There were no Jews in Jerusalem for 400 years after the Romans burned the temple and there were 4 locations that the Jews thought could have been the temple’s location.
The mount that you falsely call the temple mount is outside of the city of David too.
It’s a demonic lie to place the temple on that old pagan Roman fortress.
Derek, your position although gracious in nature and mainstream in thought, intellectually has completely discredited Bob's hypothesis with only a handful of arguments without addressing many other questions raised by Bob that would put your entire hypothesis into question. For example are you saying the Fortress was considerably smaller than the temple footprint? Can you show us the evidence of a Roman Legion being camped for many years north of the temple? You are saying 4 thousand soldiers being permanently based in Jerusalem (an extremely zealous religious community with pure hatred towards the Romans) would allow this community to build such a "fortress" while they themselves would be set up in a "camp" next door like sitting ducks? Open to assault or invasion? If you read Josephus' writings of the war in Jerusalem, you see the zeal and passion of the Jewish warriors. They killed many Roman soldiers in 69-70 AD. I can't imagine the Romans did not understand this. In my studies at Jerusalem College, our professor made it very clear that Herod was paranoid beyond logic and feared being overthrown by the jewish people. He loved Roman culture and looked to Roman to keep his throne. We had the privilege of attended the archeological digs of the city of Sepphoris for a day. It was here that our professor discussed Herod's desire to please Rome at the cost of jewish citizen's taxes. This city was an expression of this desire. It was Herodian in nature for many years following. Herod would have made sure the Roman soldiers were much more secure than the religious leaders in Jerusalem. If you believe the Romans were just encamped north of the temple for 100s of years, can you show this practice anywhere else for Roman Legions in history? Jerusalem was ground zero for Israel and central for the control of government and religion? If you knew the possibilities of revolt, would you let the jews have higher ground, and fortified walls. Would you give them 35 Acres while giving the Fortress of Antonio a small corner the size of a English castle? Would Herod do this? If you study Herod, you would have to say no! His loyalty to Rome over jewish religious was in everything he did. Herod was loyal to Mark Anthony. And, His later fight to gain his throne for 3 years, was not going to happen again. In conclusion, I do not necessarily disagree with your position entirely, but I think your hypothesis of stating the obvious evidence we have all been looking at for 100 years, and completely discrediting all of Bob's hypothesis is premature and unfounded at this point. Let us really study the evidence of all that has been discovered and being discovered. When God is ready, he will let us know exactly where Solomon's temple really was located. Be careful that history does not put your argument in opposition to the truth.
According to the scriptures, Solomon built the temple on Mt. Moriah on the threshing floor where David built an alter to God and where many believe Abraham offered his son as a sacrifice. Cornuke has based his claims on Martin's theories and changed the diagram somewhat to support his claim. Cornuke as far as I know has no formal training in archaeology and his biblical studies were done through a non accredited college. His organisation the name of which escapes me at the moment is run on his property. Think about that. Walker's argument is very valid. Also, Zion encompasses all Jerusalem not just the old city of David. When a city is extended, it still has the same name. Most of Martin's and Cornuke's claims are standing on the Gihon spring however, that was a source of water for the people in the city and was diverted to the southern end. After an earthquake, the Gihon's water became bitter so, it would be of no use for the temple. Also the name Zion which they only refer to in the old city of David and not the extended city of later dates. As far as Antonia goes, it was destroyed as well so, no one really has an idea of what it was like. If you look at a picture of the entire mount area looking down on it, the muslim mosque is standing on a long rectangle that runs the length of the mount. It would be pretty obvious that the fortress was there. Have a look at Michael Rood's ' The secret of Solomon's temple' vids on you tube. He explains thing pretty well too but places Solomon's temple a little further from the dome. As far as water goes, there are 4 or 5 cisterns of permanent water on the mount area. They're covered by stones at the moment. The Arabs were concerned about the water affecting the dome and tried to drain the cisterns but, they kept filling back up. Seeing as though the Arabs won't let anyone investigate, we don't know at the moment where that water is coming from.
Brent Cairns maybe you should read my other comments Brent. I am saying this video claims Bob's evidence and conclusion is wrong and I am saying there is too much there to discredit so quickly.
Minniebell why are you all trying to discredit Bob and slander his education. We are a sad people when we attach someone's character because they disagree with our opinion. That was my original point to the gentlemen in thi video
What I am saying is that Cornuke has no ' education ' when it comes to the temple etc. He has drawn from Martin's theory and Martin was way wrong. Cornuke in his book also misquoted scripture that says the temple stood on Mt. Moriah. Cornuke removed the reference to Mt. Moriah. You CANNOT do that with the word of God. You CANNOT change God's word to make it line up with your own belief or theories. Hence, the man is leading people astray with what he is saying. What I was pointing out with Cornuke is that people need to be aware of the fact that he is not a learned man when it comes to scripture, history or archaeology. You cannot ignore people who have made it their life to research all these things and have also approved training and all the rest of it to assert your own claim. Have I made myself a bit clearer? I was't actually attacking the man just pointing out the facts. Who would you listen to....someone who has based their knowledge on thousands of years of experience, historical knowledge, ethnic teachings handed down for milennia and other sources or, some 'upstart' from the 21st century who just wanders in with his own unfounded theories who says you've got it all wrong? If it were me, I know what I'd be telling him. lol Another point of reference that might interest you is a Messianic Jewish man by the name of Michael Rood who has vids on 'the Secret of Solomon's Temple' on you tube. Have a look at what he has to say. It's pretty much in agreeance with what Derek Walker is saying but there's more to it again.
Brent Cairns (The current thread will be grammatically incorrect because I'm dictating it through my phone) once again this thread only reminds me of the fact that conversations over the Internet about belief systems always send us into a moot court where everybody's opinions are on trial. And, it's all A reminder of how foolish I have been to express my opinion openly and how irrelevant my argument and opinion really are. However, Respectfully I am not in disagreement at all with you about all your conclusion I am merely bringing to light the fact that Bob has some great points that should not be discredited on the basis of what you have so eloquently stated as concrete truth based upon Scriptures. You also seem to assume that I put Roman history above scripture. Not sure where you got that assumption. I can only make a conjecture that it has to do with my explanation of Roman history and how it sheds possible doubts and Great questions on the mainline assumptions of what scripture is saying about the topography of the land. Your conclusions and your position is a very popular and mainline position. We all know the facts, Anyone who's interested in the subject matter there is plenty to read on it. And we all know the scriptures that everyone is referring to in both this video and in your above lecture on the inerrancy of scripture over history. However, there were assumptions made a long time ago about what the Scripture said geographically about the topography of the land. Many times archaeology and historical document study has produced the truth of locations in question and actual changes in locations in the last 150 to 200 years throughout Israel. Many archaeologist use the Bible in tandem with what they dug up to validatetheir conclusion on dates and locations. It is not either or but juxtapose. Contrary to popular thinking, we, you read into those scriptures obviously through the glasses of man's historical opinions. The bigger question is do you see that? That is why it is important to humbly read the Scriptures and constantly ask questions. Truth survives the test of any question. In fact, what I have learned throughout my short history of 29 years journeying with Jesus, is that questioning the status quo only strengthens and re-strengthens and brings great-resolve to the truth. For one to make Quick conclusions about views that do not fit into their Christian box of interpretation of scriptures in my opinion speaks more about that person's trust in their intellect more than their faith. And I believe this is more erroneous than to consider both archaeology and current findings as wonderful tools to test the truths. I personally believe that Dr. Martin and Bob both have valid questions that do not get answered clearly in the Scriptures. Thus, as I originally stated in my explanation at the very beginning, I believe these questions should stay on the table. Like your opinion mine is just that- an opinion. If we combine yours and mine we can't even buy a cuppa coffee...
You only mentioned Josephus once and barely. His eyewitness accounts carry much more weight. Josephus said the Antonia fortress housed the Tenth Legion (not cohort) with its support personnel, that's 10,000 people. Where do you suppose the Tenth Legion was based if not the 36 acre plot now called the temple mount? Josephus said the temple was 600 feet south of the Antonia fortress. Josephus said visitors approaching Jerusalem from the North would not be able to see the Temple because the Antonia fortress blocked it's view and that the fortress was on higher elevation than the temple. Josephus said the Roman Fortress was the size of multiple cities. Eleazar Ben-Yair, the leader of Jewish Resistance at Massada said the only thing that remains in Jerusalem is that monument of the Roman Fortress. The pilgrim of Bordeaux who visited Jerusalem in 333 ad. said he climbed a tower of the church of the holy sepulchre, looked east and all he could see was a wall of the Roman Fortress. These are eyewitness accounts.
There was not time to mention Josephus much, but you have been misinformed about what he said. He did NOT say the Antonia housed a legion. The 10th legion was only based in Jerusalem after AD 70. Josephus only speaks of a 'tagma' = troop, not a legion. The Bible speaks of a cohort based at the Antonia. When the Antonia was built by Herod the local legions were based in Syria. Josephus locates the Antonia at the North West end on the Temple Mount, where there is an elevated rock scarp so indeed it did overlook the Temple, and it did block the view of the Temple. Josephus is a major reason why all archaeologists locate the Antonia in its classic location. Josephus' description of the Antonia was identical to his description of the mountaintop fortress of Herodium, which is nothing like a city. Josephus also said that Titus destroyed the Antonia to its foundations so his legions could get access to the Temple, which makes no sense on the city of david theory.
Either way the Lord will reveal, Blessed be his name
He already did, please everyone, open your eyes and see the archeological evidence and evidence from scripture. Hear the explanations of the Temple Institute.
@@jeroenvonk1898 Yes. The proof for the Har HaBayith is ua-cam.com/play/PLTD5mBMCnHBWClluZmsFfKBcmd9YNCHhc.html
1 and 4-8.
www.dropbox.com/sh/jq1jmrqdxelye17/AAB6XRLgL4OZAIuoDFyWuf4Pa?dl=0
For God so loved the world that he gave his ONLY begotten son to die for our sins whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life! Lean on Yeshua in this horrible time!
are you aware that simon the hasmonian tore down the original mt zion and davids citadel southwest of the city of david around 1875 bc
johnny llooddte pleas share the source. Also there is a typo in your date. 1875 bc is also b.d. (Before David).
You are correct !!!!
Does the Gihon Spring work like the water spout out in Yellow Stone National Park, where it gushes automatically, like clock work? Would that shoot the water up to the temple area if it is higher up?
the strength of the spring is nothing like strong enough to do that. also we know that from 700BC the waters were diverted through Hezkiah's tunnel to the Pool of Siloam for the use of the city dwellers - so it was not used for the Temple. Also Isaiah talks about the gentle waters of siloam - not a mighty geyser.
Yes! That’s what it was originally but not now another metaphor from God that HE has The New Covenant ✝️
The Holy Spirit gushes up from our inner being to water those around us!
The historic size of the expanded temple mount completed under King Herod would NOT have fit in the city of david... especially since archeological excavations of these exact locations show structures other than the temple in these locations from that exact period. The temple mount is the actual temple mount.....
There was never a Rick in the middle of Solomons temple. Or Herods temple.
Everything that I have heard is that Solomon's temple and Herod's temple ere in The City of David . Why put it on the temple on the Temple Mount.
Why don't you listen to the archaeologists? Professor Mazar at present working in the City of David... the palace of David has been found with Phoenician pillars, for the Phoenicians helped in its building (2 Samuel 5). Look at the work of Dr Leen Ritmeyer.. and his book "The Quest". The temple mount is Herodian. Herod built this. What for? For the temple. The great stair way at the south-west corner of the Temple Mount, described by Josephus, was found in the excavations after 1967.
Beulah Edwards
Linda Marquis because it is the place from which G-took the earth to make Adam the first man it is the place that Abraham sacrificed Isaac and it is the holiest place in the universe that's why
Bruce Levine Please correct me if I am wrong but G-D told Abraham to. go to Mt. Moriah - No mention of a place called Temple Mount. I m not saying there is no Temple Mount but to claim thats where G-D made Adam - I mean who was there?
Of course not! there was no temple 4,000 years ago. Israel didn't exist. Read the Scripture - in 2 Samuel 24:18 on is the account of David buying the property in preparation for the building of the Temple. At the time he bought it, the area was a threshing floor. Read about David's preparation for its building. 1 Chronicles 28:10-12+
I confess that I have not read every comment below, but I did watch the video 3 times pretty thoroughly. I see nothing addressing the statement of Josephus who said, looking to the south from the northern area of the Church of the Holy Sep. , he said as you walked south toward the north wall of the TM area you CANNOT SEE THE TEMPLE! Now I've never been there, but I don't think it would be necessary to understand what he was saying. If the temple were actually located on top of the temple mount, why couldn't Josephus see it from the Northern area?
again you have been misled as to what Josephus actually said. your source has fed in the idea of the viewpoint being where the church of the holy sepulchre is today, because it fits his theory. Actually if you read Josephus in context its talking about coming from the north - and indeed to the north of the temple Mount the ground rises higher (the peak of Mt.Moriah is where Golgotha is), so an army coming from the north cannot see the Temple Mount from the north until it gets over that hill.
Just to affirm - Josephus said no such thing (you have been misled). What he actually said was: Wars 5.246 "but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower of 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." Now I agree, walking from the north-west as is described here you cannot see the city of david, but not because the line of sight is blocked by the classic TM plateau (which some say was the Antonia), but because of the lay of the land (the TM plateau is not in the line of sight between the Holy Sepulchre and the City of David). However, Josephus says that the Temple can be seen from the north EXCEPT where the line of sight is blocked by the Antonia. So Josephus contradicts this novel view at this point, and he confirms the classic view. An alternative (and probably better) translation of this passage is: “The hill Bezetha was, as I mentioned, cut off from Antonia. It was the highest of all the hills, and its rising ground was encroached on in part by the new town; it formed in the north the only obstruction which obscured the view of the Temple.” (This translation was the basis of my previous comment, in which I mentioned armies by mistake). This translation indicates the hill Bethesda (which includes Golgotha) is the highest of the hills and hence blocked the view of the Temple from the north, while by implication the Temple could be seen from other northerly angles - which is certainly true in the classic view, but again manifestly untrue in the novel view, as Josephus is saying that if Bethesda was not there the temple could be seen from all northerly directions. Thus whether you interpret the Antonia or Bethesda as the obstacle Jospehus contradicts the city of david theory and confirms the classic theory. The careless way that Cornuke handles (manipulates) the original source by summarizing it as saying: “Flavius Josephus wrote that the temple could not even be seen from the north of the city of Jerusalem”, should cause one to be very careful before accepting any of his other claims, as to what Josephus and others say. He spins the meaning to fit his theory. I would recommend checking a contour map of Jerusalem if you have not been there - i show one within my longer video on this subject (the link is at the top of the Comments).
in my father s village, the threshing floor was just 50 m away from the house, from the whole village, and the elevation was tiny in comparison with the village, basically almost no elevation at all. but it WAS 50 m away from the village. cows were walking around this stone and they would walk over the wheat and around the stone.
Yes, I saw a video of a threshing floor in the middle of the village, right next the the house, only about 20ft x 20ft, with a donkey walking around it, tied to a pole. For the people that say that a threshing floor has to be way up high, and not close the the village, they don't know what they are talking about.
Mistake 1; God said on a mountain I will show you. Not on top of a mountain.
Mistake 2; A threshing floor needs convenience and a light wind. To much wind is bad. The very top of a mountain is bad because it is not convenient and it has to much wind.
Mistake 3; David lived inside the Gihon spring fortification as well as the palace so the "go up" on the threshing floor could be anywhere above the Gihon spring fortification or above the palace. Top of the mountain is not stated.
1. the Temple Mount is a plateau on Mount Moriah, the peak is to the north - where Golgotha is (where Jesus was crucified)
2. the dome of the rock is where the holy of holies was (on the local high point), not the altar. It was the altar that was positioned on the threshing floor, which is to the east of the high point and thus protected from the strong wind from the west - ideal for a threshing floor. Also threshing floors are never inside cities.
3. all those who hold this new city of david theory agree that the temple had to be on the top of the ridge (where the large stone building = David's Palace was discovered)- if you have been there it would be obvious to you that the temple or david's palace could not be on the steep slope - it makes no sense. It could not be built on top of the Palace because the palace continued operating after the temple was built.
@@DerekWalkerOBC You weren't there so you can't say for sure and this is probably your biggest mistake. You don't know what you don't know. ua-cam.com/video/6tzom66XhZ8/v-deo.html
All any of us can do is go on the biblical and archaeological evidence that is available - sometimes we can be more sure than other times, but in this case the evidence is very clear. the bible itself spells it out, then the Ark was taken out of the city of davide to be put in the temple on higher ground in 1Kings 8:1: "Now Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord FROM THE CITY of DAVID, which is Zion."
I do not know which area the temple was actually at but I do know that this man horribly misquoted and misrepresented the words of the people who believe that the temple was in the City of David. Much of what this man said is inaccurate. Wherever the Temple was God does not need his kind if help either.
No threshing floor is ever on the top of a hill! Do you really think that they took their grain all the way to the top of the highest part of the area to thresh it? That is nonsense! They did not grow it there either. There are man made cisterns on the temple mount. No "living water!" By the written word of God the priests and every Jew had to be ceremonially cleansed by living water! That means water that is moving! The only place in Jerusalem that has moving water is the City of David. After the temple was destroyed the whole area was dug out. The word of God says that the temple of God would be like a plowed field. That is not what that platform that the Muslims built their mosque on looks like. The reason that the Jews believe that the temple was on that platform is because that is where the mother of Constantine said it was and she was a pagan that believed "voices" led her! There are more scriptures that indicate that temple was in the City of David then on that platform. There is much to be considered but misquoting and misrepresenting people who disagree with you is not the way to win your argument. I would advise people to read the other guy's book or watch the free videos on UA-cam and get the facts for yourself.
If you think i misrepresented their views you should give a specific example - i have been careful to study their material and understand what they are saying and its consequences (intended or unintended), as well as studying the source material and the actual experts.
Threshing floors were in the fields where there was a decent breeze, certainly not inside a city - and the area of the temple mount would have been for fields so a threshing floor there is logical. It was originally a hill (not the man made plateau it is now). The threshing floor would not have been at the very top as you say because that would be too exposed to the wind but to the east side of the hill exactly where the temple altar was later on. This would provide a central location for the fields north of the city (the ground goes even higher to the north, west and east).
As for the water, what you say is based on misinformation - there was in fact running water flowing to the temple mount thru aqueducts from fresh springs at bethlehem - we know this from achaeology and the jewish records (remains of the pre-roman lower aqueduct to the temple mount exist toay). the gihon supplied the city population not the temple.
The plowed fied prophecy (700BC) was fulfilled after the destruction of the 1st temple in 586BC.
Your info on Helena (mother of Constantine) is wrong in that she did not declare the location of the Temple but the Holy Sepulchre (where they believed Jesus was crucified). The jews would not get info on their holy site from her anyway.
If you want the real facts then you need to dig deeper than books or youtube videos made by non-experts but read the books of the real professional archaeologists and historians. There is a lot of misinformation out there!
Ellie L Your analysis doesn’t hold water.
1. I agree that the threshing floor can’t be on top of a hill. And it wasn’t. It was on the southern slope of the mount Moriah. This solves your problem number 1.
2. Water source: Archaeologists have found that water was brought to the temple location through water aqueduct. This entered the temple through the Wilson’s arch and flowed southward as per gravity. Sir Charles Warren’s maps when overlaid on the southern Temple Mount matches nicely. Thus the temple got its running water. This solves your problem number 2. Read more from this website and try to challenge the evidences that have been presented.
www.templemountlocation.com
3. See the below video and understand that the ancient Herodian road doesn’t stop with the city of David but goes all the way to the Temple Mount.
ua-cam.com/video/Z5OaFxK14yc/v-deo.html&feature=share
There are many many ritual baths found on the top of the Temple mount. They were not for the Romans because they don't use them.
Stones also a reference to leaders or people so just trying to describe to you people that everything will be destroyed if you found a one stone that wasn't turned over on to the other stone that doesn't mean it's false it's just a classical saying does somebody
The floor of the Dome of the Rock is not a threshing floor. It is pitted and uneven. A threshing floor needs to be flat and smooth. It is also the top of a natural protrusion that had fill dirt piled around to create a level spot for the Antonia Fortress. It would unreasonable to think an ancient farmer would carry sheaves of wheat up to the top of a protrusion on which to thresh it, only to have to lower the grain down as well.
As for Mt Moriah being the location of the Temple, I agree with Mac Tek. ("This assumption that the Temple needed to be located exactly where Abraham was to sacrifice Issac doesn't make sense. If there is supposed to be some divine sacrificial connection, then why wasn't Christ crucified at the temple as well.") The Bible doesn't say Abraham went to Mt Moriah anyway; God told him to go to the LAND of Moriah, not "the" mount of Moriah. (Gen. 22:2 - He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”) I doubt the Jews would have known with precision which of the several mountains in the Land of Moriah, Abraham was on. I doubt it would have been any of the mountains that are within the immediate vicinity of the Jebusite fortress. As you read the text, somehow, it fails to mention a city near at hand with a bunch of Jebusites staring from the walls at Abraham about to kill Isaac. You'd think that would be worth mentioning.
I don't think the Creator of the Universe makes as big a deal or gets sentimental about a singular location as we humans do. It was the ACT that's important - that Abraham was willing to go through with it and his faith, not where it happened. If you take that to the extreme of symbolic reenactments, then you'd have to be with Mac, and Jesus would have had to have been sacrificed within the Temple, on the altar, and His blood sprinkled on the Arc of the Covenant, which wasn't even in the Temple when Jesus was crucified.
Your theory doesn't take into account that in Acts the Hebrew verbs clearly says the soldiers came DOWN to the Temple (being in a higher elevation) and taking Paul back UP. If the "temple mount" is the Temple, where was Fortress Antonia? In the sky?
As for the threshing floor of the Jebusite necessarily being on top of the "temple mount" or even on a high place, that's just not factually correct. Threshing floors were not "always" on hill tops. Google "ancient threshing floor" and you'll see plenty of examples of them being in valleys. It was more about the wind flow & currents that determined the location. Wind can certainly flow down into valleys, especially replacing rising air off hillsides warmed by the sun.
I'm not necessarily defending Cornuke or Dr. Martin. I'm not convinced the Gihon Spring is the location for the simple and logical fact that it was the main source of water for the city's residents. God wanted His temple built, but I don't think He wanted His people to die of thirst.
It makes much more sense that Solomon built an aqueduct that had plenty of pressure to wash the Temple grounds. Aqueducts, even siphon aqueducts (that could cross valleys and go uphill -- as long as the "uphill" was lower than the origin) had been in use for a thousand years before Solomon.Siphon aqueducts were first used at the palace of Knossos on Crete. Founded in 7,000 BC, the first palace was built in 1,900 BC, about 1000 years before Solomon.
Based on Josephus, the accounts of eyewitnesses at Masada (that the only thing left in Jerusalem was the Roman Fort), the Bordeaux Pilgrim, and many others, the so-called "temple mount" is most likely the Fort of Antonoia and not the location of the original or second (Hezekiah's/Maccabees) or third (Herod's).
Finally, you say that Cornuke thinks he needs to "help God out" by conveniently saying the Temple wasn't on the temple mount. He's not saying that at all. If anything, I think what Cornuke and others say holds the real and rather beautiful hope: that God will change the hearts and minds of His chosen people and awaken them to the true location of the Mount -- just like He will eventually change their hearts and minds and awaken them to see that they've rejected their true Messiah in Jesus Christ.
Which, ironically, means they don't need a Temple.
Great work. It would seem that many of the commenters did not watch the presentation through its entirety. (1) For those who harp about Fort Antonio, it was constructed so that it overlooked the Temple Mount. The ground it was built on may have been lower than Mount Moriah, but nothing substantial. For example, the Ophel, just to the south of the Temple Mount, is much lower than the ground were Fort Antonio was built. This is the very reason why the Romans made the Fort their point of attack. Think about it; if you were an occupying ruler would you let the Jews have a vantage point over your troops? Watch the whole presentation to learn about the Roman troop camps to the north of the fortress. (2). The Gihon Spring flows down to a pool at the southern tip of the original City of David (pre Hezekiah's tunnel). This is the pool where Solomon was anointed king. This is not the Pool of Siloam. That was added at a later date. There is no room for a temple there; not to mention there is zip archeological evidence of a temple being there. Finally, the Gihon Spring was not and is not a gushing spring - the kind of water source required to wash the Temple of blood sacrifices. (3) The presentation effectively debunks the proposed Cornuke temple site - not to mention the scriptural description found in 1 Kings 8:1. (4). One thing not effectively addressed in this video is that Islam has completely rebuilt the Temple Mount. The walls and even part of the foundation had to be reconstructed. This is obvious when you visit the site. (5). The remnants of the original Western Wall are actually 50 feet below where Jews pray today. Go on the Western Wall tour to the north of the prayer site, or to Archeological Park just to the south and this is very easy to verify.
the clue Jesus Christ give on Matt. 24:2 ...not one stone shall be left unturned....where does the wailing wall or the whole temple mount fit on this? The Jews regard Jesus as a Great Prophet but the "Christians" believe He is our savior and Son of God so do we believe what Jesus said in Matt.24:2? I do!
Brent is your whole argument based on the idea that buildings are not made of walls?
Respectfully, you need to get a grip on Bobs theory. Right now it is obvious that you haven't looked into it. It seem like you are a "Minister" who has believed something so long you have a hard time accepting any fact or clue to the contrary. Before you reply here, do us all a favor and actually look into Bob Cornuke's theory. It does not require hydraulic calculations as the traditional view of the Temple on the Haram does.
You are reaching for straws. Do you read in Hebrew? Oh BTW. I watched your suggested video. 3 weeks ago. check it out I left a comment there. And no Fleisher does not indicate the actual height of the water. His statement is that the water head originated in the upper part of the city. You just have this way of twisting peoples words. It seems to come naturally for you.
Why yes I have Cairns. And if I told you "Demolish this building. Do not leave one stone on top of another. Throw every one down." and you went and left a wall of blocks 62' high.... well you would be fired.
The very reason the orthodox rabbinate hold so tightly to the "Wall" as their Temple is that it conveniently makes a mockery of the words of Yeshua (Jesus) when he prophesied the total destruction of the Temple.
Is that your aim as well?
well scribes inserted the story of the the adulteress woman that wasn't in the original text and another as well. NOT to accept secular witness with accurate to the foot measurements is ridiculous and foolish. Then there is the water issue that hasn't been explained. I think its near the gushing spring.. but as said God will sort it out as I won't be here to worry about the site.
What gives me the "Right" Cairns? It's called discernment my good man. And God himself gave it to me. Would you take my right to discern, which God has given to me, away?
Do all religious groups who use the Bible agree on the meaning of all the verses? That is because we all have free will in our interpretation. God gave it to us all. It us up to the individual to decide if what he believes is correct, or what group to associate with.
I do not believe that the "English" Translations are absolutely pure. (Do you remember a prophecy about restoring a pure language to Israel?) Nor do I believe your assertion about walls and buildings. I actually believe it to be a ridiculous train of thought to say that Jesus didn't indicate the "walls" would be destroyed too.
I know it is not a salvation issue, but more an exercise in logic.
It's about the location of the Gihon spring head (EZKL 47)
BTW: I am not here trying to convince the Orthodox. I am here calling Derek out on his ridiculous and demeaning statements. In other words: I don't believe neither Derek nor you, when it comes to your understandings of the issues talked about in this video.
I am an evangelical Christian and I worked for the Israeli government in the seventies . Later I was contacted by the Jewish agency in London and asked to represent Israel in Yorkshire which I did after some years founded 'Friends of Israel' in S. Yorks . I have recently researched the history of Jerusalem for a poem which I have just finished - 'Song of a Golden City' . The poem opens with the conquest of Jebus from the viewpoint of David's followers . I would like to say that I broadly agree with most of Pastor Walker's ideas but need to tell you that the threshing floor was within the citadel of Jebus and was purchased by David because he considered it a dishonour to take property without proper payment . The Jebusites continued to live peaceably alongside the Israelites . The Gihon spring served the settlement but not the Temple area . There were other water sources on the higher ground . Don't forget that Jesus said that the day would be coming in which true worshippers would worship the Father neither in Jerusalem nor this mountain but in spirit and in truth . I am quite opposed to the reintroduction of animal sacrifice in Jerusalem as it would cause all sorts of problems in this day and age and is no longer necessary anyway . The rabbis have already begun to offer sacrifices and I am doing what I can to help the Jews realise that the sacrificial system is not applicable and certainly not as offered at present . God has allowed the Dome of the Rock to be built as a prevention of this and Moshe Dayan's decision in 1967 is quite in keeping with God's will on the matter . See that God's will is going to be fulfilled . I continue to work with the Jewish people . Please pray about this . Contact me - rosannestinchcombe@gmail.com
Thank you for taking the time to reply . Of course my inspiration is the scripture . I cannot go into this here - but God is already opening hearts and lifting the veil . I have just written a poem entitled 'Song of a Golden City' which outlines three thousand years of Jerusalem's history - just going into print and will be on Amazon soon .
If the threshing floor was in the Jebusite stronghold which David conquered, he would not have had to purchase it. The threshing floor was on the eastern side just below the top of Mt. Moriah. Threshing floors were not within cities. Solomon built the temple on Mt. Moriah on that threshing floor as David had been shown. The temple will be rebuilt and animal sacrifices will continue because 1. The Jews are still looking for the Messiah to come the 1st time and they believe that the temple and it's workings must be in place before Messiah can come. 2. The antichrist will cause the sacrifices to cease. Remember that the Jews don't believe that Jesus was and is the Messiah. It is believed by many that the rock under the Dome of the Rock or at least part of it is where the ark of the covenant stood in the temple not where sacrifices took place. The Jews won't accept a non sacrifice approach because it's crucial to their belief. Samaritans have for years continued to offer animal sacrifices.
The 1st and 2nd temple was 600 ft south of the Antonio fortress,
Conected by two collanades.
And you would be EXACTLY, and PERFECTLY correct my friend. These lies about the Muslims or Arabs wanting Christians to buy into a false narrative is crap. It is the truth and the muslims would have no problem at all with the temple being rebuilt in the city of David, literally NOTHING is even there, but a few scant homes and fields. In fact, within last year they found what appears to be a small temple cleansing area, where animals for slaughter were stabled, right near the very spring used in purification, and is this on top of the mount. NO, it is right in the city of David where it is told.
This individual, Derek, is full of hot air and waffle. His opinions are just that, theory! All supposition and hot air, with no substantive proof whatsoever!
@@danivarius Actually, he's quite a theologian!
No it wasn't. Cornuke is not an archeologist.
Gideon you are not looking at facts and are blinded by tradition
I think the key is in the words "In the mount" They believe they have found Joshua's Alter (Joshua 8:30) and it was not on top of mount Ebal but was half way up the slope "in the mount" not "on the mount". I agree that the threshing floor was not on top of the mount but was just outside the north wall of the City of David as Mac Tek stated below.
*The altar on Mt.Ebal discovered by Zertal is 1250BC - whereas Joshua is hundreds of years earlier.
*Its important to note that the theory that the Temple was just north of the city of David is different from Cornuke's theory which is based on the fact it must be within the city of David. This new variation was created to avoid the obvious problem's with Cornuke's theory, but it still does not explain where Solomon's Palace Complex was. Its actually closer in principle to the classic theory than Cornuke's as it has the Temple to the north of the City of David, but it does not have many of the features that draw people to cornuke's theory like being within the original zion and close to the Gihon.
*I agree the threshing floor was not and would not have been at the very peak - that is where the holy of holies was. The altar was built over the threshing floor, so it was a short distance to the east and lower than the peak which protected it from the full force of the winds.
*in the interview i did not have time to cover all of this but i am bringing a more detailed video out in a few weeks
Thank you for your response Mr. Walker. This is a very interesting subject and whether Christians care about the temple mount or not, I think it is intertwined with future events. As you stated, Joshua is hundreds of years earlier but I would not think that time is a factor in Gods choice of location for his temples. That being said, I am not convinced one way or another about its true location yet but I will not try to pretend that I am as familiar with the subject as you are. I look forward to your more in depth video and will continue to use the tiny bit of wisdom I have been given - not much - to judge the facts.
Thank you Scott. I agree with you in a sense that the Temple does not have to be at the very top of a hill or mount as even the Temple Mount is not the peak of Moriah (see a countour map). I believe Jesus was crucified at the peak of Moriah (now called Gologtha - the place of the skull). Not many realise this is the northern extension of Moriah (this is disguised by extensive quarrying north of the Damascus gate. However my point is that if you have a built up city, it is normal to build a Temple on the high ground above the city, so that its elevation represents its greater holiness (closeness to God). The Biblical descriptions align with this requirement (e.g. Psalm 48:1-2). The Temple Mount, being the local peak of Moriah, fits this requirement perfectly.
even if they rebuild the temple, the priest serving there must be Levites. how can they determine who is from the tribe of Levi ?
Danny Roosenboom They have Rabbis that can trace their lineage back to Aaron.
Danny Roosenboom genealogical testing is complete for descendants of Aaron. Still in the process for descendants of King David though.
how ? the romans destroyed the temple , where the records were kept. the temple was put on fire and we all know< that these scrolls were very easy to burn!
Not all the historical records of Israel were stored in the temple itself and, much is oral as well. Passed down through the generations. At one time, oral history was the way to teach ,pass knowledge etc because many didn't have the luxury of parchment or education. The Jews were very faithful in passing oral history and laws etc.
DNA testing .
The key to the location of the temple, in my opinion, is the Gihon spring. Why the Gihon Spring? Because it is the only freshwater spring in the region. It was used for the priest's purification rituals. That is a significant key point in the debate. The question arises, does the law of Moses instruct that the temple must have a fresh water source?
Yes you are right about the need for fresh water but this only confirms the classic Temple Mount, which was fed by fresh water from the Ein Etam springs on higher ground near bethlehem through an aqueduct. This is confirmed by archaeology (it is a pre-roman aqueduct) and by jewish records. the Gihon on the other hand was too low in the kidron valley to function as a water source for a temple on the top of the city of david. In any case its waters were diverted to the south thru Hezekiah's tunnel to the pool of siloam for the use of the people of Jerulamem rather than for the Temple.
The big issue about the Temple mount is this no freshwater dedication by Solomon of the Temple thousands of animals we're slaughtered it takes a lot of water to clean that up it was a celebration water from the gihon spring flowed out of the threshold of the Temple all you have to do is Google it
its scientifically impossible for the Gihon in the kidron valley to be the source for the temple on top of the city of david ridge - water does not flow uphill! Moreover Hezekiah's tunnel took the Gihon waters to the Pool Siloam for the use of the city, so the water was not available for the temple. however the springs at bethlehem are above the level of the temple mount so they could flow downhill to it - so the jewish records and the classic view of the temple mount makes sense. The aqueducts go to the temple mount but none go to the city of david.
The Gihon is a rare siphon spring where the water gushes forth with pressure, and eye witnesses speak of the gushing source of water in the temple. Water can flow uphill metaphorically as long as the the outlet is lower than the source (hence a hose put in a pool can bend at the bottom but still drain the pool as long as it is lower than the pool surface). The source of the Gihon may be a higher mountain - some have suggested Scopus. I'm glad you mentioned Siloam - the faithful purified themselves in this very water before ascending through the City of David. This is what Aristeas wrote: "there is an inexhaustible supply of water, because an abundant natural spring gushes up from within the temple area." And there is only one natural spring in Jerusalem.
Larry Fries See the clear evidence that the Temple Mount was the true location of the temple.
ua-cam.com/video/Z5OaFxK14yc/v-deo.html&feature=share
The ancient road doesn’t stop at the city of David but goes all the way to the Temple Mount.
Were the aqueducts built in the time of King Solomon? I thought the Roman's built the aqueducts. One more interesting thought here, does Daniel 11:31 refer to the sanctuary (Temple) as a fortified Sanctuary in the time of Anti-Christ. My thoughts, great discussion. I am no dogmatic when it comes to archaeology concerning the temple mount I am still seeking the scriptures, and history to discover my own conclusion.
Those that propose the temple was on the temple mount have to believe that Solomon built aqueducts, even though there's some evidence the pools in Bethlehem were originally meant to irrigate crops. If there was adequate water supply to the city, then why why would Hezekiah go to such extreme work as chiseling through rock to re-route the Gihon? He did not want his enemies to have access to such abundance. What is interesting about temple mount traditionalists is they act as if there is nothing special about Gihon, yet we know the Tabernacle of David was pitched near it, it was part of the anointing of new kings (such as Solomon), and the water was captured in Siloam for ritual bathing, and was used by Jesus to perform a miracle on a blind man. There is no denying that Gihon is important.
I find it strange that no Roman fortress has ever be found in Jerusalem ?
A Roman fort has been found. Fort Antonia was on the site now know as 'Temple Mount'
Bob is not trying to help God out as you say. What he has done is to follow the facts of scripture in locating where the temple stood. If the temple is to stand where the 1st and second temple stood then the location of the temple needs to be clear. The Jewish people are very subject to traditions held by the elders. Jesus said for example (not one stone of the temple would remain standing, That the temple would be fully pulled down)He was correct,or do you call Jesus a Liar?
Actually Bob does use the present apparent impossibility of building the Temple as an emotional argument toward considering alternative locations so it is valid for me to address that. Also what Jesus actually said was that no stones of the temple buildings would remain - He did not talk about the retaining wall of the platform.
Jesus talked about the Temple, not about the surrounding walls around the square. And I've seen proof that is still there, see my earlier comment...
Can we get an update please circa 2024
i have a question ? does the temple mount have running water ? because you need a lot of water for cleansing and washing away the blood of the animal sacrifices
Yes - there was an aqueduct taking running water from springs near bethlehem on higher ground direct to the Temple Mount - this is confirmed by archaeology and by the jewish records (archaeology confirms that this 'lower aqueduct' was pre-Roman. A Temple on the peak of the city of David would have had no water supply because the Gihon was too low (it is at the base of the hill) and its water was used to supply the needs of the city not the temple - its waters ran gently down to the pool of siloam in the southern end. It is worth noting that the bible nowhere says that the Gihon supplied the water for the temple.
yes, the blood is still on their hands
It doesn't matter where they were built, Jesus dying on the cross and his resurrection took care of this. John 4:23
Woman ... stop butting in ... let the man speak!
People, don't worry so much God knows exactly the position of the Temple no need to crack your heads.
But I think Yeshua will prefer the right place to be King of the earth, so we better take this matter serious!
The really cool thing about this is - It Doesn’t matter where anyone thinks it belongs!!! God is in total control of everything
@DerekWalker Which temple is the temple described in Ezekiel 43?
In.Parable Gihon Springs.👽
It would bode well if the theorists would actually VISIT the site and study it responsibly before launching such theories. So much has been left out in this discusion that it is simply a bit ludicrous. On the other hand, I am certainly in favor of the creativity involved in such imaginings. Quite impressive!
Amen
He did visit the site
I thought Jesus' prophecy was that no two stones would remain together. If the Temple was on the Dome of the Rock, then you have all the huge 2,400ft Temple Walls still standing. But if the Temple was in the city of david, then not two stones were left together.
You have to decide: If you believe the Temple was where the Dome of Rock currently is, then Jesus was a false prophet, but if you believe Jesus' prophecy, then the Temple was in the City of David.
Simple...
Antonio Fortress had to be huge to hold 6000 troops and 4000 support people. a Legion.
It certainly wasn’t that tiny thing people currently think it was, for sure!
It probably just held a cohort (about 500).
No military need to put a legion there. Herod's palace had troops as well.
There were very few troops in Antonio...most of them were stationed on Mount Scopus where they had a great vantage point to view the temple mount and the city. Ever hear someone say "I'm going to "scope" it out ...that's where that comes from , Mount Scopus.
How do we know that Legion X was entirely garrisoned in a single location? Occupiers would normally be somewhat dispersed.
@@rampartranger7749 They were on a part of the Mount of Olives which gave them an unparalleled view of Jerusalem.
My understanding is that the Temple Mount was in fact the Roman fort Antonia which hels the 10 th legion.
I wish she would stop interrupting
It is impossible to listen when this VERY ANNOYING arrogant lady rudely interrupts the speaker, interferes, and adds, and intervenes!!!!!!!! Stop her, let him speak!!!!!! I couldn't watch it till the end because of her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The dome is merely an aggravation, to stir up anger.
Found this fascinating. She asked him the questions that were going through my mind. I appreciated that ☺. Really enjoyed.
The Lost Temple is at Golgotha where our father Jesus was crucified the Ark of the Covenant was 20 feet below that and our fathers blood ran down the crack and landed on the Ark of the Covenant because that signifies Jesus is the New Covenant
🎯
And that ark of the covenant (The mercy seat) I believe will play a HUGE part in the Abomination of Desolation. Even more so than a rebuilt temple (Which may or may not be built). The Mercy seat will be the center piece of the end times here on earth I believe. Perhaps what the beast does with the ark, is what brings forth God's wrath.
The man in this video knows nothing! He said that the temple couldn’t have been down in the City of David. There is two problems. The massive Roman fortress was where the so called wailing wall is today. It was the only building left after they destroyed the entire city! The entire city of Jeruselam was left with not even a foundation of any building left. To say that the wailing wall is the wall of the temple calls Jesus a liar!
The Roman fortress was higher than the temple and Josephious spoke of two bridges that went from the fortress directly to,the temple so they respond troops quickly to Jewish up risings. Feet tall so that the Romans could watch over the walls of the temple to monitor the Jews. Where does this man say is it possible for the Roman fortress to have been if it was so massive as to be able to look down into the temple. Let’s not forget there were 8,000 Roman troops there in that fortress! Plus the support personnel.
You say i know nothing but the knowledge to which you refer are simply assretions (of Martin/Cornuke) that you have heard that have no basis in fact. I have answered all your points more fully in my other answers to youtube comments but i will make some brief comments. (1) it is the bible that says the temple was outside the city of david because the ark of the covenant was taken out of the city of david when it was placed in the temple. (2) You assume a massive roman fortress because of the claim that a legion was stationed there from when it was built by King Herod but this is a myth - history is clear that there were no legions based in israel in the time of Herod. The legions came to fight in Syria in the Jewish War and only then from Ad 70 was the 10th legion based in jerusalem and even then Josephus is clear that their camp was on the higher western side of the old city not where the temple mount is. The bible speaks of a cohort (500) based at the antonia and josephus uses practically the same terms to describe Herodium as he does antonia. (3) Jesus said all the temple buildings would be levelled which they were - the temple Mount walls are just the retaining walls for the temple platform, which is different. The wailing wall was not the wall of the temple but a retaining wall of the temple platform upon which the temple was built. The Romans tried to dismantle the retaining walls but half way down the huge stones were just too hard to remove - later others built up the walls again. Also remains of first century houses have been discovered in Jerusalem. (4) Josephus says that Antonia was on the north-west corner of the temple platform (at the intersection of the northern and western colonnades) which is indeed on higher ground than the temple because there is a natural rock scarp there. It was built upon this great roak to a good height and had an excellent view down upon the Temple area. The 2 bridges are another myth - Josephus never used the word for bridge - he was plainly speaking of the double western temple colonnade that connected the antonia to where the temple itself was.
Josephus confirms the classic temple mount. He says that the Antonia was a the North East corner of the Temple Mount and gives its distance from the Temple buildings. Also you are incorrect to say only the Antonia was left. Josephus tells us that the Romans destroyed the Antonia to its foundations as part of their final assault on the Temple Mount. Josephus also describes the base of the roman 10th legion as being near the Citadel (Jaffa gate) on the west side of the old city, not on the temple mount. We did not have time to deal with Josephus, but if you read Josephus for yourself you will find it supports the classic temple mount.
Derek Walker Is that so? Josephus clearly stated that the walls of Jerusalem were destroyed. So perhaps you can clarify if you can in contrast to your theory.
It is time for us to realize that it is the modern scholars who are wrong, not the eyewitness accounts of Josephus and Titus. Jerusalem and the Temple were indeed destroyed to the bedrock just as they relate. Regarding this, there are other sections of Josephus’ accounts to show that he was not exaggerating. Josephus was keen on telling his readers that all the walls around Jerusalem were leveled to the ground. Note his observation: "Now the Romans set fire to the extreme parts of the city [the suburbs] and burnt them down, and entirely demolished its [Jerusalem’s] walls" (War VI.9,4.).
This reference shows that all the walls, even those enclosing the outskirts of Jerusalem, were finally leveled to the ground. To reinforce the matter, Josephus said elsewhere: "When he [Titus] entirely demolished the rest of the city, and overthrew its walls, he left these towers [the three towers mentioned above] as a monument of his good fortune, which had proved [the destructive power of] his auxiliaries, and enabled him to take what could not otherwise have been taken by him" (War VI.9,1).
Dr. Eilat Mazar, in 2010, discovered shortly into a dig in the Ophel at the base of Temple Mount region (south of the temple mount [BUT NOT UNDER IT] and in the area of the suspected location of the temple), A rare and ancient trove of coins and jewelry has been found buried near Temple Mount in Jerusalem dating back to the 7th Century.
The haul includes a total of 36 gold coins etched with images of Byzantine emperors and a 10cm medallion etched with a Menorah, Shofar made from a ram's horn, and a Torah scroll.
Among the unprecedented find, made by Dr Eilat Mazar of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, was also a 3,000-year-old earthenware jug inscribed with what is believed to be the earliest example of written text ever discovered in the region.
The discovery was made in the ruins of a Byzantine public structure located in the Ophel region - between the city of David and around 50 metres from the southern wall of the First Temple. She found an inner gatehouse for access into the royal quarter of the city, a royal structure adjacent to the gatehouse, and a corner tower that overlooks a substantial section of the adjacent Kidron valley.
Many of the coins found featured emperors ranging across a 250-year including Constantine II to Mauricius.
As well as the Byzantine gold, pottery discovered at the site is believed to date back to the 10th Century, around the time of King David.
There were six ceramic jugs found in total and one had an ancient inscription engraved onto the side believed to be the earliest written text ever found in Jerusalem - predating the existing earliest engraving by around 250 years.
She is also the same archeologist who discovered David's palace where the clay bullas (seal impression), with names from the Bible on them, were found. She also has stated that she uses the Bible as a map in order to know where to do a dig.
Yes - Mazar is an excellent archaeologist and also believes the classic view - i have her rather expensive book 'The Walls of the Temple Mount'
She may, I'm not really sure. But what I do know is that her work with her grandfather, and the work she has done on her own, point to the fact that the temple was south of the temple mount. That's were her grandfather, and now she, keep finding the treasures of the temple...NOT UNDER the temple mount, south of it!
The Byzantine era was not during the time of King David but after 330 A.D. David lived from around 1,000 B.C. The items you described had nothing to do with the temple eras. The 3,000 year old jug would be no evidence at all to show that the temples were elsewhere other than the temple mount. It's just a jug and various pottery. She couldn't actually be finding temple treasures because they were carried off as booty by successive invaders. Anything dated after the building and destruction of Herod's temple would discount her claims of the temple being elsewhere anyway. The items would have to be dated pre 70 A.D. and much earlier not later dates. Even so, they would have to be items relating directly to the temple not some coins or jewellery for example. There has been evidence come to light during excavations in 1967 ish that prove the temples were on the temple mount as Ps. Walker explains.
you are clutching at straws. Mazar does not come to your strange conclusion, that she found evidence for the temple being on the ophel. Byzantine times were hundreds of years after the temple was destroyed so that is irrelevant. In any case in the classic theory, in solomon's time the city extended north from the city of david covering the whole area up to the temple mount so we would expect there to be discoveries on the ophel.
I think that YOUR conclusions make no sense. Why would the temple be built so far away from the water source that they needed so badly? You simply are repeating what others have repeated without any real evidence to back those conclusions up. Finding a bell from priest in the dirt is confirmation that the temple was located on the temple mount. It just means that it fell off somewhere in Israel and someone found it, that's all.
However, I do believe the evidence is there that proves the temple was to the south of the current temple mount where the water source actually exists. It also meets the descriptions...the exact descriptions that Josephus gave in his writings about the temple sitting on the crescent between two valleys, putting it to the south of the citadel. The temple mount meets the descriptions EXACTLY of where the Roman citadel was located. He described it as HUGE, almost a city unto itself. I just don't believe that you've proven your claims. As far as my description above, that is taken directly from an archeology report where they found the coins, etc. And the Archaeology in the History Department at UNC Charlotte is digging at the Mount Zion site now and they ARE finding treasures and priestly homes, right next to where the temple most likely WAS located. Which makes sense, the priests would have lived within walking distance of the real temple location.
This discussion will most likely never be resolved until Yeshua returns again. Personally, I'm satisfied by the eye witness account from Josephus. I'm less impressed with all of the guess work from people, like yourself, thousands of years later claiming that they know better than someone who was alive during those times. Unless you can find a way to travel back in time and use your own eyes, I'm going with the historian from that time. But you just keep trying...maybe you'll eventually get it right some day.
ahaha the temple was built below mt zion to the sw and above the springs ahahah.. both mt zion and temple mount or dome of rock to the northeast were always higher
quick question.........how does the location of the golden gate that was sealed up by the Muslim ruler soliman figure into the new location ?
the sealing of the gate shows that the muslims hundreds of years ago believed that the Temple was on Temple Mount which makes sense because the tradition based on the Bible says Messiah will land on the Mount of Olives and go directly into the Temple and the Peak of Olives is directly east of Temple Mount, NOT the city of david.
Derek have you really read all of Dr. Martin and Bob's material? And, have you watched the latest videos and interviews of the archeologist digging there now? I noticed in the interview the lady interviewing you had to correct you a couple of times. It is always easy to take a position of antithesis, especially if we are looking for many youtube views or a platform. Let us be very careful. I believe Bob is on to something, and maybe ground breaking into significant steps to finding the temple's actual location. The city of David is being continually uncovered, more will be brought into light really soon. Your video is permanent for all to see, you have chosen to take a position back on the higher ground. Your arguments are really no greater in evidence than his, except modern tradition.
Interviewer should be doing something else. Very bad.
What I do not understand Jesus says there will not one stone on another?
Jakob toews: You must read in context. The disciples "came to show the buildings of the temple .... not the platform.
Lucifer? He's dead. He is a man, the King of Babylon, the bright day star of the Middle East of that day! read the context of Isaiah 14 (note v4,16)/
Didn't watch video?
THAT IS A FACT, AND CANNOT BE DISPUTED!!
Jakob toews from what I remember during the destruction of Jerusalem in 79AD fire broke out in the temple and the ornate gold filled temple melted down and got between the stones of the temple. In order to get at the gold the Roman soldiers basically dismantled the entire temple down to the foundations. Not one stone was left on top of another. I believe that was Josephus’ account of what happened.
If the Israelites will build the temple in the city of David where I am convinced , is where the original temple was built it would sure take the wind out of the Muslims sails.
The blond girl needs to stop interrupting all the time.
Stop pulling stuff out of your behind. Not one stone will be left on one another... means all of it buildings and walls. No one would have seen the walls of the temple as not being part of it.
Both sides have great arguments and both sides avoid the other’s best arguments. They really need to have a proper debate.
Really interesting, thank you.
There are no arguments for it being on that old pagan roman fortress.
@@WilliamH490 i just recently heard that, this year.
@@billrobbins5874 All His very best Bill, see ya on the flip side with our Jesus!
@@WilliamH490 I believe we all hope so!
Sorry Mr Walker, it's quite apparent that you're wrong on this. The Scriptures are very plain as to what was left of the temple after the Romans destroyed it. Several ancient historians also were quite specific that there was nothing left. Jesus said that not one stone would be left upon another. So, in a nutshell, either you are wrong, or our Lord was a Liar. I'll go with you are wrong.
If you read what Jesus actually said it was that the buildings of the Temple would be totally destroyed - which they were. He said nothing about the retaining walls of the landfill which expanded the mount upon which the Temple was built. The walls you see today like the wailing wall were not part of the Temple itself. When the Bible speaks of the Temple it always means the Temple - not the surrounding structures.
We will have to agree to disagree, there's far too much evidence to the contrary, starting with the scriptures, and going on through Josephus and others who made the point that the only structure left in Jerusalem was Fort Antonia. Everything else was "as if it had never been".
I think you are making the mistake of taking everything said by certain people as fact without checking it out. Josephus says the Antonia was destroyed by the Romans, and that after the destruction of Jerusalem the 10th legion set up camp on the higher ground on the west side near the Jaffa Gate where a section of wall was left standing and a couple of towers that had guarded Herod's Palace (in the present day christian quarter). Nowhere does he say the only structure remaining was the Antonia.
Actually no I'm not. I've done my own research, and what has been believed by alot of people just does not add up. We'll continue to disagree on this point, but, in time, the truth will come out. Whether the Temple is rebuilt on the site called Temple Mount or in the Old city of david is really moot. The fact of the matter is, it will be rebuilt. Shalom.
Josephus gave the measurements of the fort of Antonia. The Temple Mount has the same measurements as the fort of Antonia.
That is simply incorrect - i have read the relevant parts of Josephus. i think that is just something you heard somewhere but you did not check it against the original source - but i do invite you to prove me wrong by giving the relevant reference in Josephus.
Derek Walker ,there's a book called Temple. THEY KNOW WHERE The Temple is!
I have the book by Cornuke - but you have been misled if it has given you that impression
That is absolute wrong
James Josephus never said that
You were doing so well until the 47 minute mark, then you lost it with the sacrifice's starting again and God allowing it for a 3 1\2 year tribulation, Hosea chapter 6:6 read it "I desire mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. And lets not forget that Christ shortened that 7 year period for the elect's sake, lest no flesh would be saved, Mark 13:20 read it, and in Revelations chapter 9:4,5 he shortened it to 5 months, that's 2- 21\2 month periods. But hey, now you know, other wise first rate on the site's and locations of the temple, thanks.
The actual Mount Mariah may have been completely leveled in their pursuit for the melted gold.
The Ark was hidden below, not 'melted.'
Titus gained access to the temple through the fortress of Antonia: "Now, when affairs within the city were in this posture, Titus went round the city, on the outside with some chosen horsemen, and looked about for a proper place where he might make an impression upon the walls: (259) but as he was in doubt where he could possibly make an attack on any side (for the place was no way accessible where the valleys were, and on the other side the first wall appeared too strong to be shaken by the engines), he thereupon thought it best to make his assault upon the monument of John the high priest, (260) for there it was that the first fortification was lower, and the second was not joined to it, the builders neglecting to build the wall strong where the new city was not much inhabited; here also was an easy passage to the third wall, through which he thought to take the upper city, and, through the tower of Antonia, the temple itself." (Josephus, Wars 5.257-260)
Yes, and Titus destroyed the Antonia Fortress at the foundations. nothing of the Fortress remained.
Three ancient tombs and a first century synagogue all point to two squares of streets 300ft & 600ft wide, the same size as the temple precincts according to Josephus, right in the heart of the City, just 300 meters west of the dome of the rock. Just saying.
Think what you want but it doesn’t make sense that Solomon would build the Temple in the area of King David’s palace and homes of the time but location was on the Temple Mount.
watch videos TRUE TEMPLE MOUNT ( part 1 ) ( part 2 ) ( part 3) THIS GUY IS BEHIND THE TIMES
No, hes presenting actual evidence refuting the made up claims by others based on nothing other than blind desire to have the temple not be the same location of the dome of the rock.
Didn’t Mr Cornuke show a video showing a threshing floor in the city of David near the Giheon spring ???
Prophecy must be fulfilled. The Temple will be rebuilt.
Not until Jesus come.
If the Temple mount is the true location. Why is it not being rebuilt? Why are the enemy of God and the Jews allowed to have their Dome there? Hmmmm
its all in God's timing. the fact is that God allows His Temple to desecrated and destroyed if His people turn from Him has been seen in the past and will be seen in the future with the abomination of desolation
Because God gives you time to repent and turn to Him, just like me.
The anti-christ will confirm THE covenant of between the Jews and God. It's not talking about the antichrist MAKING A COVENANT OR AGREEMENT with the Jews. I believe the Ark of the Covenant and the Cornerstone will be discovered after the Ezekiel 38 or Psalm 83 war.
Jim Garvey The Apostle John describes seeing the Ark in heaven in Revelation 11:19. "And the temple of God in the heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunders, and an earthquake, and great hail.". As John is describing the end times, the possibility exists that God has already assumed the ark into his heavenly temple.
Camella I agree with you. But if God could take the Ark up to Heaven then I believe he can also send it back down. It would cause the Jews to rebuild the Temple because it must be house in the Holy of Holies ok. God Bless and good luck, something BIG comes this way. 😃
It was discovered in a cave under a pile of rubble . research the word hudna ,A hudna (from the Arabic هدنة meaning "calm" or "quiet") is a truce or armistice. It is sometimes mistranslated as "cease-fire". In his medieval dictionary of classical Arabic, the Lisan al-Arab, Ibn al-Manzur defined it as: "hadana: he grew quiet.
Mecca Agreement makes only a Hudna False Peace Truce Possible!The anti Christ confirms this.
Jim Garvey; But there is no reason to believe that the anti-Christ could not make the covenant after the Psalm 83 and confirm that agreement after the Ezekiel 38 war. The Anti-Christ could easily confirm his own covenant with many people.
The earthly ark was described from the Original which was in heaven. It is here somewhere on earth. and yet we are also told not to bother to look for it because it will not be found... so... well.... we'll see!
This person being interviewed seems smart and knowledgeable
You want "wind" but not too much wind for threshing, so it may not have been on the "top"
Yes, but I don't want to eat the chaf that blows in my face, when I would live in the City of David... :)
In 2020 , archaeologists found that Solomon's pools that fed the temple mount cisterns were constructed by the 6th Roman legion. This destroys the narrative that the temple mount was the original temple site.
I want you to remember that the Earth will be divided east west and then my dad will bring in His House
Your “dad”? Are you referring to God almighty as “dad”?? Where is your awe struck wonder of the sovereign God of creation, the eternal living one?!