What Happened on the Temple Mount?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- Jeremy and Barry talk with Dr. Gabriel Barkay, the lead archeologist for the Temple Mount Sifting Project in Jerusalem. He tells them about the controversy surrounding digging on the Temple Mount in the 1990’s that gave his team access to truckloads of historic material to research. Dr. Barkay walks them through the sifting site and how the process works.
Watch the rest of Episode 5 of “Searching for a King” at www.appianmedia.org/searching-for-a-king
Special thanks to our executive producers, donors, and our corporate sponsor One Boat Rescue Boats (theoneboat.com).
![COLOMBIA vs. CHILE [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDjN4W3yy1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Partial history of temples in the HIGH PLACES.
Perhaps this is semantics but wouldn’t the temple that herod commissioned to be built be the third on the site? The Temple of Solomon would have been rebuilt by the returnees from the exile in Babylon many centuries earlier.
From what I understand, Herod didn’t rebuild the temple from scratch. He refurbished the existing temple and added to the grounds and the compound. This would have been the second temple that the returning exiles had built.
There were only two temples. Zorobabel only rebuilt the Solomon temple, wich Herod later demolished and rebuilt.
@@sandrad9695 ....
Herod did no exist when people returned from exile.
His temple was built later. Zorobabel rebuilt the ruins of the Solomon temple, but this was not considered a "second" temple.
Later Herod demolished this first temple and built the second.
@@PauloPereira-jj4jv Where do you find this information? The consensus is that Zerubbabel's temple is the second one. I'd be interested to see the reasoning behind thinking Herod started the second temple.
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Genesis 50:20
Perfect verse for this situation!
Good came of a bad decision.
I can’t wait for a king’s seal from king David is found! That would be like a nuclear bomb exploding!
“He [Solomon] wanted to put the temple as high as he could in the city to give proper reverence to God”
What!? Wow, this is just plain wrong! Solomon did not decide where to build the Temple...God did! The Lord told David to purchase the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite for the site of His Temple, and that’s where Solomon built it.
I couldn’t take the rest of this video seriously after such an obviously false statement.
So , this time ,what prevent jews to rebuild 3rd temple in the place of the dome of the rock ?
So were is the ROMAN FORT ????? Roman Soldiers would never allow such a thing like this to happen... The Fort would be the size of some 36 acres and would take up the whole top of the hill. Everyone keeps saying the temple was on top of the hill ,,, so were is the spring water for washing... BOOM there was none at the top of a hill ,,, only down the hill in the location of the Gihon Spring and the pool of siloam.
There are various reasons why this is not so. 1) The biblical record states that the Temple was built "on Mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." (2 Chronicles 3:1). This site, throughout documented history, has been identified as Temple Mount. 2) Anyone who has personally visited the site knows there simply is not enough room in the City of David for the temple platform. The archeology at the temple mount and recent excavations in the city of David simply will not allow for the temple to be built there because there is not enough room, based on the dimensions provided in scripture (II Chronicles 3) Recent excavations at the "Parking Lot" of the City of David prove the temple was not there. 4) Archaeological evidence clearly indicates that in 70 AD, the massive structures on the Temple Mount platform were destroyed and burned by the Romans and thrown in massive chunks from the platform. It is illogical to think that the Romans would have done that...to their own fort.
5) There is no indication in scripture that fresh running water was required in the temple area, it is an assumption. To use an assumption to lead you to the conclusion that they would have washed animal sacrifices in the Pool of Siloam (which was not at all what that pool was designed for and never occurred) is also not based in historical accounts.
While the detailed study of history and archaeology is beneficial, we must not let differences of thought distract us from the most important thing here: the life-changing nature of the biblical text and our response to it. We pray that our videos and resources can help draw us all closer to God and to His word. Blessings on your continued study!
GIHON SPRING
There are various reasons why this is not so. 1) The biblical record does NOT state that the Temple was built over the Gihon Spring, but rather (as mentioned in the passages above) "on Mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." These two places were NOT the same, as threshing floors are dirty and dusty and never near a major water supply. 2) Anyone who has personally visited the Gihon Spring knows there simply is not enough room in the City of David for the temple platform. The archeology at the temple mount and recent excavations in the city of David simply will not allow for the temple to be built over the Gihon spring because there is not enough room, based on the dimensions provided in scripture (II Chronicles 3) Recent excavations at the "Parking Lot" of the City of David prove the temple was not there. 4) Evidence used to support the idea that the temple of Solomon was built over the Gihon spring, is actually speaking of the Aqueduct Solomon built to supply water to the temple.
While the detailed study of history and archaeology is beneficial, we must not let differences of thought distract us from the most important thing here: the life-changing nature of the biblical text and our response to it. We pray that our videos and resources can help draw us all closer to God and to His word. Blessings on your continued study!
الله ومجعله خيرن نشاواحدحد 💐🐜🕊️⬅️
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!
Which part of the eye witness testimony and video footage from the actual event was wrong exactly?
@@craigdehut I am referring to the video's speculation that Israel's temple stood where the dome of the rock mosque now stands.
If you haven't come to the conclusion (I'm assuming that you've studied this at length), that that the Temple Mount was directly above the Gihon Spring in The City of David, then you, respectfully, are wrong to begin with. There are also eye witness testimonies of Fort Antonia being where the dome of the rock is now sitting. The problem is that people throw those eye witness testimonies out for the sake of their own traditions, along with their desire to state that Israel has a right to be in the land. Israel absolutely should be there, in every square in of Israel; God gave it to them.
So, whatever was dumped, if it was from where the dome of the rock is sitting, was from Fort Antonia. Respectively, I've spent the last 20 years of my life studying this issue and this is the only area that makes sense. Sorry if you disagree. Thanks for your time.
@Batman M The City of David is not even wide enough to contain the Holy Temple's complex, which measurements (740 x 740 feet that made the 500 x 500 cubits) are known from Jewish and other sources.
The Giḥon spring only fed the residents' needs for water. Conversely, multiple cisterns and water sources are found on the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount has over 20 cisterns and conduits which were plenty of water for the services (I have seen for myself their capped openings on Har haBayit). One cistern could hold over 2 million gallons and another around 700,000 gallons. This is verified history. On top of this, Jewish records show that there was an aqueduct that brought water in abundance to the Temple Mt. from the Pools of Solomon at Etan near Bethlehem (not to be confused with the aqueduct that Pilot later built).
The Fort of Antonia was around 40 cubits high on a high ground. According to Josephus it was razed to the ground by the Romans in order to access the Temple Mt during the destruction of the Second Temple. The Antonia was not new, it was a fort that was constructed by Solomon and then rebuilt by Nehemia and called the Baris. The experts of the City of David excavations and around the Temple Mt., who work daily to reveal the history of ancient Jerusalem, have found nothing to date that suggests the Temple Mt. was the Antonia fortress.
By the way, no credible recognized archeologist says the Temple was south of the Temple Mount. For example, all these archaeologists from the 1800's and 1900's who had access to the site said the same thing about the Temple being on the Temple Mt.: DeVougue 1864, Ferguson 1878, Warren 1880, Conder 1884, Schick 1896, Watson 1896, Mommert 1903, Dalman 1909, Hollis 1934, Simons 1952, Vincent 1954, Ritmeyer 1985. Additionally, Dr Benjamin Mazar, Dr. Eilat Mazar, Captain Charles Warren, Conrad Schick, Lee Ritmeyer and others are credible sources, and they all agree Mt. Moriah is the Temple Mount. Converesely, Dr. Martin and his successor Robert Cornuke, whom you are echoing, are faux scholars. Martin's theory was disproved by the experts already in the early 1990's (!!). Cornuke and his ilk really do not know what they are talking about, and the resurgence of Dr. Martin's debunked theory stems from a thrust by Christians following their tradition of "proving" the Jews wrong, with the ante upped in order to prevent Judaism from returning to dominant relevance, by denying it its holiest site. Won't work.
There's just no damned way you had properly studied this subject if you are advancing the bunk you stated in your comment. In any case, don't worry about it, since the Temple Mt. has nothing to do with you and you will probably never step foot there anyway, except perhaps as a tourist.
As a Jewish Temple Mt. devotee I sleep very well at night -- the drivel you and your ilk spout is not even remotely a cause for concern to me, being that the rock solid Jewish tradition about the Temple Mt. location matches the topographic data and Jewish Scripture. It boasts anecdotal contiguity since the early AD 70's; evidently, Josephus F. was aware of Jews who had begun returning daily to the Mount a mere 2-3 days after the Holy Temple had been sacked. None of the Christians who attempt to defy it can provide convincing answers that bear scrutiny to the question of when the Jews forgot the supposed original site. To even suggest we Jews are so dumb that we manged to forget our holiest site along the way since the AD70 Destruction is preposterous and utterly arrogant when stated by non-Jews.
If you disagree it is only on you. Thanks for your time.
@@ZviJ1
Can't dispute anything you said. Do you have any opinion on where the Temple was located on the Mount? The Dome of the Spirits aka Tablets is one possible location for the Holy of Holies.
@@craigdehut well for starters, it is not true when he said that “[Solomon] wanted to put the Temple as high as he could in the city to give proper reverence to God”
Solomon did not decide where to build the Temple...God did! The Lord told David to purchase the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite for the site of His Temple, and that’s where Solomon built it.
Ther was no temple there only mosque
Clearly you didn’t actually watch this video.