Very interesting .For believers encouraging their faith, but for some unbelievers it will not matter , as they refuse to let go of their opinions even with the evidence staring them in the face! Mr Good is an excellent lecturer and achealogist ! I loved this video !
These men ignore the fact that a Roman theater has recently been discovered that adjoins the wailing wall underneath, which the Jews would NEVER have allowed if that had been one of the Temple walls. This discovery has been kept mostly quiet because of the implications it has.
Here is Prof. Dan Bahat's interview done by a Christian that did not have any preconceived ideas of the Temple location. At 3:52 the interview begins about the Roman theatre. ruclips.net/video/UzaJPUMXHZI/видео.html
@@CryForZionMedia You didn't answer my statement that the Jews would NEVER have allowed a Roman theater to adjoin that wall if that had been one of the Temple walls" The videos you directed me to also don't respond to my point.
4) What you call the walls of the Temple Mount have multiple towers and slotted windows like that of many other Roman forts. There are also symbols of the Roman Legion found all around the the walls. Why would the Temple or the Temple Mount need towers and slotted windows and have symbols of the Roman Legion?
This what y say is just rubbish. The Romans had no fort in Jerusalem. Herod has build a city for the Romans and their soldiers with palaces, forts, temples and bathhouses. This city had also a residence a court and a main prison. This city is Ceasarea Maritima where Paul was imprisoned for 2 years. Jerusalem was only visited by the Roman pro-counsel 2 times a year and he had just a small legion with him to prevent a provocation and just had his residence in the Antonio palace. Saying something different as some evangelic fundamentalist do is not knowing how explosive a Roman presence was on the most sacred place for the Jewish people. The romans did know that and took care not to provoke a rebellion and so Herod build them a new city on the coast as they always did so they could transport more quickly over Sea. The evangelic hoax to put the Temple in the city of David is just an evangelic political and anti-semetic agenda to proof that Jesus the messiah. It is a typical american way of seeing things that y see how stupid it is. Joseph Good knows very well what he talking about and can proof all the arguments of that evangelic hoax as not correct.
@@antonius3745 That is not correct according to Josephus and Roman records the Tenth Legion was housed in Fort Antonia. Moreover, if you follow Josephus descriptions of the city there is no doubt that Fort Antonia was actually at the “Temple Mount” and the Temple was at the City of David.
@@GEORGEGEORGEIII The focal point of the Temple Mount was originally a threshing floor. Threshing floors are located outside cites, not within them, because they create dust.
@@GEORGEGEORGEIII , the 10th Legion was stationed in Jerusalem AFTER the Jewish revolt in 70 AD, NOT before that. They were called out from the garrison in Caesarea Maritima to put down the revolt in Jerusalem, and they camped at the Mount of Olives for the siege. After sacking Jerusalem 6 months later, the Legion moved on to sweep up more places, and eventually took Masada in 72 AD. After all was said and done. The 10th Legion parked itself in Jerusalem's Western Hill. So, no, the Temple Mount was never used to house the 10th Legion.
2) From the Bible, we know that Hezekiah redirected the Gihon Springs in order to block it from the Assyrians. In fact, per 2 Chronicles 32, "When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him. They gathered a large group of people who blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land. 'Why should the kings of Assyria come and find plenty of water?' they said." Why would they go to all that trouble to block the springs from the Assyrians just to leave the Temple and its supposed separate water source accessible to the Assyrians?
I think it's incredibly obvious that the "temple mount" is an old roman fortress. The magnitude of the building could not have been constructed by a meager population of Israelites. You have to remember the original temple was built a thousand years earlier. They wouldn't have moved it when the second temple was built they would have just improved on it. Not to mention underneath the fort is a series of aqua ducts which is more proof Roman construction. The only water source in Jerusalem was the gihon spring and they did not posses the technical knowledge to redirect that water up the mountain away from the natural spring.
The proof that you are correct is found below. 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 temple by attacking the foundation of Antonia 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. 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? Where was the “tabernacle” at that time? 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 1:39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon. 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: 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? . Read “Wars of the Jews”, Book 6, chapters 1-7, if you want to understand the temple, and Fort Antonia, and the cloisters that connected them. www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm#link62H_4_0001
Where is the Water for the cleansing and sanitation needed to support the unimaginable thousands of gallons of blood and fluid from thousands of animals, spouting blood from sacrifices ongoing! Follow the water!
I stand corrected. You address my water concerns. Would love to hear more about the water so necessary for the day to day operations and of course the Feast days where the system was overloaded! Thank you for yer Zeal and ongoing research!
If you had taken the time to watch the full episode, we literally explain the argument being raised for the water source. Just watch the episode and also our other episodes on our RUclips Channel ruclips.net/user/TempleMountReport, where we go into detail on all the issues of the Temple location and why the theory for the City of David does not work.
Perfect and crystal clear explanation, you need to bring smart people from UNESCO to see this maybe experience enlightenment and see what Jerusalem is.
Thank you! If you liked this video you should also check out Doron's latest travel vlog on Israel called Dust & Stones at: ruclips.net/user/DoronKeidar
Thank you very much for this video. It has taken my breath away. From all the facts you have laid out it is impossible for the temple to be in the City of David. It is in fact on the Temple Mount. I have read and watched countless videos on this subject and was still confused. You have made it black and white to me the facts of where the temple in fact is. I could listen to Doctor Good all day long. Why do people just not ask him. I cannot thank you both enough. May God Bless you both. AMEN.
Self deception makes you blind to reality, the evidence for the temple of Solomon being in the city of David is overwhelmingly obvious. The traditions of man puts it on what is referred to as the temple mount, but the Holy Scripture says the City of David. Your choice, what man says or what the Scriptures say.
1) As you know, Solomon's Temple was built around 1000 BC long before the aqueducts (around 300 BC) that fed the cisterns you claim were below the Temple. Per Scripture, he would have needed "fresh flowing water" not rain water collected in cisterns. Therefore, what was the flowing water source for Solomon's Temple?
@ Rich Flinchbaugh, as the guys mentioned, the source of the Gihon Spring had other "eyes" that water came out of under the Temple Mount, which was a very big structure. At the end of the day, there are just too many overwhelming archaeological evidence, not hearsay, to prove that Temple Mount is the Temple Mount, and NOT a Roman camp.
@@Birdylockso Joseph Good said the water in the cisterns on the Temple Mount came from the aqueducts but those aqueducts didn't exist at the time of Solomon. Also, if the water on the Temple Mount came from the Gihon Spring, why would they build aqueducts. You are ignoring the facts, which are that there are no connections between the cisterns and the Gihon Springs. Even Joseph admits that. Get your facts straight and try to keep up.
@@rflinch , I see no point to discuss this matter further. I am sorry to admit my own fault in engaging. I realize that there will always be some who believe the earth is flat, vaccines will cause autism, Trump is a great president, etc.
Does Mr. Good know why Herod's secret tunnel to the Temple from the fort to the Temple was found in 1867 and uncovered again by the IAA in the 1970s but it's on the south wall of the traditional Mount? Does he know that the Akra discovered in 2015 was said by Josephus to abut the Temple and overlook it but it is in the City of David? Does Mr. Good know that to call fellow believers anti-Semites because they disagree with him is not what believers do?
Joe! It was wonderful to see you at the Temple again!!! I remember everything you taught me about the Temple from years ago. I still have the notebooks to read your notes! You also allowed me to interview Dr. Elat Matzar! I'm keeping up with all of this and I'm so grateful you're giving the information to "bust" the other Temple theory. I've recently worked on documentaries in Israel.....my favorite topic from this this side of Heaven!!!
Scripture states that Solomon built the temple on the threshing floor of the Jebusite, and Josephus said after the destruction that you wouldn't know a temple ever existed there, so these people who say they found the foundation stones are full of it. The Temple Mount is the Roman fortress and the little square in the corner they say was the Roman fortress is I believe to be the praetorium
"there are none so blind as those who will not see" Aside from unanswered questions, this video is riddled with half truths, blatant lies, convenient omissions, and obvious disdain for those who dare to question your belief. I can't list everything I noticed, so a few will have to do. 1. How many times has Jerusalem been through the cycle of build - destroy - build cycle, with Jebusite, Canaanite, Assyrian, Jewish, Roman, Arab, Crusader, Egyptian, and Persian people... (I could go on but I hope you get the point) 2. To get to the level of the Roman occupation archeologists are having to dig down 30-60 feet, in some areas. The ground you walk on today is nowhere near the ground Solomon built his temple on. 3. When did a foundation cease to be part of a building? Much of the temple mount has been rebuilt several times, that is obvious just by looking at the stones, arrow slits, windows, etc. 4. IF the stones at the bottom of the "retaining wall" truly are from Herod's temple, then that would make them the holiest objects on the planet for Jews and some Christens. 5. That rock is a quarry, and the tunnels under the mount are also part of a quarry... (where did the stones come from that Solomon built with?) 6. There are cisterns on top of the mount, there is no "living water". Aqueducts do not count!. There are no references to a spring under the mount, at least that I have been able to find. Living water must be free flowing, natural source. 7. There was a Roman Legion in and around Jerusalem during the second temple period... (the roman leader sent 3/4 of his forces to protect 1 man?) The Roman records and Josephus both state that there was a full Legion present in Jerusalem. Romans would not have forced someone to commit suicide, they would have thrown them. 8. All the people you mention wanting to go to the temple are the ones that were classified "unclean" and would not be allowed on the temple mount until their illness (discharge, wound, infirmity) was totally healed. If a leper with an active case of leprosy used a mikvah then the mikvah itself would be deemed "unclean". You would NOT find anyone that was unclean, or impure, close to the temple, not even on the stairs! The reason for this is plain: a. you wash at a mikvah to go to the temple b. you get close to the temple steps and there are sick people around you c. you try to dodge them, but you get sneezed on d. you are now considered unworthy to enter the temple e. start over 9. Exodus 20:26 "Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon." There were no stairs leading up to, or on, the Temple!! I'm not trying to be rude, mean spirited, demeaning, or anything of the like. I just want to point out that there are always 2 sides to the coin
The Mikveh was at the bottom of the hill where the steps get started at the Shiloach Pool in the lower part of the City of David. The actual Pilgrimage Road in the City of David have been unearthed. They, the steps, are IDENTICAL to the steps leading to the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount because the Temple was on the Temple Mount. There is no debate about that amongst those who examine the archeological record. The point that is open for debate is whether the Temple was over the spot of the Golden Dome, West of the Golden Dome, or south of the Dome closer to where the Al Aksa Mosque was.
Their claim that the Romans completely destroyed Fort Antonia falls apart below. "The Wars of the Jews", Book 6, chapter 2, 7. In the mean time, the rest of the Roman army had, in seven days’ time, overthrown [some] foundations of the tower of Antonia, and had made a ready and broad way to the temple. Then did the legions come near the first court, (12) and began to raise their banks. The one bank was over against the north-west corner of the inner temple (13) another was at that northern edifice which was between the two gates; and of the other two, one was at the western cloister of the outer court of the temple; the other against its northern cloister. However, these works were thus far advanced by the Romans, not without great pains and difficulty, and particularly by being obliged to bring their materials from the distance of a hundred furlongs. They had further difficulties also upon them; sometimes by their over- great security they were in that they should overcome the Jewish snares laid for them, and by that boldness of the Jews which their despair of escaping had inspired them withal; for some of their horsemen, when they went out to gather wood or hay, let their horses feed without having their bridles on during the time of foraging; upon which horses the Jews sallied out in whole bodies, and seized them. And when this was continually done, and Caesar believed what the truth was, that the horses were stolen more by the negligence of his own men than by the valor of the Jews, he determined to use greater severity to oblige the rest to take care of their horses; so he commanded that one of those soldiers who had lost their horses should be capitally punished; whereby he so terrified the rest, that they preserved their horses for the time to come; for they did not any longer let them go from them to feed by themselves, but, as if they had grown to them, they went always along with them when they wanted necessaries. Thus did the Romans still continue to make war against the temple, and to raise their banks against it. 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 temple by attacking the foundation of Antonia 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. 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? Where was the “tabernacle” at that time? 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 1:39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon. 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: 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? . Read “Wars of the Jews”, Book 6, chapters 1-7, if you want to understand the temple, and Fort Antonia, and the cloisters that connected them.
He's an old man who has spent his entire life believing that he was an expert on the temple mount, and now he is faced with the prospect that his lifes work has been a total waste of time. Unfortunately the evidence for the temple being in the City of David looks overwhelmingly correct. I'm surprised that the Orthodox Jews are having a hard time believing this as it is written in their own scriptures that the temple of Solomon was built in the City of David.
@@brokenangel7972 So was the Koran, The New Testament, The Bhagavad Gita, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Tao Te Ching, the Theravada scriptures. And every other Religious Text on the planet.
@ Marcus Sparticus, like you, after hearing Martin's theory about the Temple Mount being just a Roman camp, I was like, Wow. All the archaeologists are so dumb. Then, I realized that I need to dig around to hear the other side's argument, and not just take one side on face value. Well, after taking it all in, plus the most recent archaeological findings, I have come to realize that the 10th Legion was never based at the Temple Mount, the City of David could not be big enough to hold both David's Palace and the Temple. The most recent archaeological find of the Pilgrim Road from the Pool of Siloam to the Temple Mount just proved the massive structure was NOT a Roman fort, but the Temple Mount.
actually the ark of the covenant was "TAKEN OUT OF THE CITY OF DAVID TO THE TEMPLE" so that proves by Scripture that the temple was outside the city of David. 2 Chron 5:2 tells us that the Ark of the covenant was taken ‘out of the City of David’ to the temple built by King Solomon.
If you want to know the location of the Temple Mount, follow the location and stories of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 ce. There’s only one location that works for that story, and that is the Temple Mount.
You are perfectly right! It seems people can't even read Flavius Josephus. He states clearly that Titus arrived in Jerusalem on Mount Scopus and from there he had a perfect view on the Temple. (Note : from Mount Scopus you can't see the City of David) I can't understand why stupid people waste their time looking for anything else... unless it's for money or their own fame.
@@privatevideos1886 Only a stupid person would dismiss the holiness of the place where King David had his tabernacle and where the Ark once rested, where oil was brought out by a priest to anoint Solomon. You make many assumptions. I don't intend to engage you on a factual discussion - waste of time with someone so closed. If you want to venerate a pagan place - that's up to you - but isn't that what ancient Israel kept doing?
@@edbenjamin5136 There is a vast difference between David's tabernacle and Solomon's Temple... I agree, waste of time. This is the end of my communication.
You are absolutely correct! If the Temple had been in the lower City of David the Jews couldn't have held off the Roman Army for such a long time during the battle, or inflicted the heavy losses of Roman Soldiers Causing Rome to send additional forces.
I really wish they would just get both sides of this together to discuss the matter because both sides bring up things that the other side does not mention. Like the other side mentions they have found coins under the Mount that are too young to be there. This is so frustrating
For those who have not taken the time to watch the full episode, we literally explain all the arguments being raised in the comments section. Just watch the episode and also our other episodes on our RUclips Channel ruclips.net/user/TempleMountReport, where we go into detail on all the issues of the Temple location and why the theory does not work.
Excellent video and a pleasure to hear an expert explain to the doubters. Yet I see below in the other comments that either they didn't spend the time to watch (too bad) or they completely ignore evidence that is right in front of millions of peoples eyes to see. The 'Roman Legion'? There was only a Cohort of 600 men stationed in Jerusalem pre-rebellion times. The Roman reinforcements were brought up to Jerusalem during the high holidays. Later during the Rebellion 70 AD the Temple was destroyed and that was that.
It's my understanding (and I am no expert) that Solomon's temple mount was 500 cubits square... right? And in order to put a 500 cubit square in the City of David, the size of the cubit would have to be much, MUCH smaller than any known historic cubit measurement. Is that correct? Yet another nail in the City of David theory coffin.
Yes, that is exactly right. The 500 cubit measurement does not fit and the ones pushing the myth, give a suggestion for a 600-foot square Temple to make their idea work but then you won't have space for Solomon's palace as well on such a narrow ridge.
@@CryForZionMedia there needs to be a correction, Mr. Armstrong said himself to a little girl whom asked him straight in his eyes if he went to the moon and he said no we didn't, because we don't have the technology. He died with that because the Freemasons gave him the Honorary 33 Degree for lying to the public, and his colleagues were given their higher Degrees as well, I saw them in their Freemason regelya on the lunar surface Disney Sound stage where it was filmed.
There is a large megalithic quarried stone under the Temple Mount. this stone is referred to as Solomon's Stone. it is very impressive because it and two others that are similar to it are the original foundation for Solomon's Temple.
Listen, "THE FINAL JUDGEMENT," is at hand, know that what you choose for your eternal fate will be your final choice... You must be very cautious how you choose to live from here on out! Please there are no lukewarm heavenly bodies in Heaven!!! Choose now, in your heart, righteousness or evil?!!! Do not take this as a joke!
This confusion needs to stop....Each viewpoint group should sit together in a panel discussion till all the facts are exposed ,proven and agreed upon...remember to take the ground probably changing at the earthquake at the time of the crucifixion into consideration
"this guy" is the founder of Cry For Zion, the only Temple Mount organization dedicated to educating Christians on the Temple Mount. Mr. Joseph Good was one of our key note speakers at the Temple Mount Jerusalem Convention, the first convention dedicated to Temple Mount education since the second Temple period, where Jewish and Christian experts came under one roof to lecture on the Temple Mount. Correction, Mr. Good does not hold a doctorate as far as I know, even though he has more knowledge on the Temple Mount than most experts I know. This clip was filmed and edited by Scott Cole and in respect to his contribution to this project we did not edit out the questions from this interview where we would have done otherwise. Mr. Good asked me to lead the on location interview so that he would know what to talk about, otherwise he could go on for hours on any given subject since he know so much on the Temple Mount history and archeology. It is probably better to try and understand why people do what they have instead of making nasty comments online. Respectfully, Doron Keidar
@@CryForZionMedia My remark was not to be disrespectful, it just seems that when people do interviews they talk to much and don't allow their host an ample amount of time to speak. I love listening to Dr Good ,he is very knowledgeable and insightful. My apologies 🕊
@@ThomasAnderson-sd6yt Apology excepted, we are more than happy to hear that people like to hear more from Mr. Joseph Good, he is truly a blessing to many Christians and Jews alike!
More I know the lies more I believe in Jesus... That means at anytime politics can rebuild the temple without religion fight... That also means that the 7 year peace agreement can be signed anytime... Unbelievable!!!!
You contradict yourself in this video. First, you say there is no way to get water from the Gihon Springs to the location of David's palace, however, later, you say the Gihon Springs flow farther north even beyond the Temple Mount. You ignore the fact that the water pressure from the Gihon Springs has been greatly reduced since the time of Herod. Also, you claim the cisterns were the source of water for the Temple yet, if that is true, where did the water to the cisterns come from if not the Gihon Springs? The aqueducts did not exist at the time of Solomon's Temple. Lastly, you misrepresent most of the people who believe the Temple was in the City of David. They don't believe it is the location of David's palace. They believe it is in the area of the Ophel (north of David's palace but south of Fortress Antonia, which you claim to be the Temple Mount).
We do not contradict ourselves, it's the way you understood the point. What we are saying is that the people promoting the Temple in the City of David theory say that it has to be there because of the Gihon. So we made the point that even they pointed out in one of their videos that the Gihon originates north of the Temple Mount, so basically it could be accessed at any point north of the City of David if needed. During Solomon's time, they did not need as much water as they did during the second Temple period, which is why during the Hasmonean period they built aqueducts to add even more water to the Temple Mount besides the cisterns as the need grew. To date, we don't have archaeological evidence of what you claimed that north of the city of David between the Temple Mount plaza existed a Temple structure. In any case, if that would be so the Temple would have to be a very small structure. I have consulted the top archaeologists (Dan Bahat and others) on that theory and in their words, "it is rubbish". It is not mine or Joseph Goods opinion that matters but rather the evidence found in archaeology that matches the biblical account with all the other eye witness account like Josephus. If you have read Josephus's account of the Antonia you would have noticed that he records that it was raised to the ground for the Romans to be able to access the Temple Mount, since the Jewish rebels used it as an impenetrable fortress to hide in. Within the past year, new archaeological finds have shown that the 10th Roman Legion had a large bathhouse even to the western parts of the old city of today that has just been uncovered. (facebook.com/cbnnews/videos/578133069571235) That shows me that we have much more to learn from that period as more archaeological finds come to surface. To date, not one Roman tile with the stamp of the 10th Roman Legion has been uncovered at the Temple Mount as we have found in other places. What we due have in plain sight is remains of the Temple built by Herod as described in the Jewish records exactly. For example, the wave-like patterns on the pillars that are showcased by the Islamic Waqf as you inter the Mugrabi gate on your right match the Mishnaic description and much more Herodian architecture that we know were unique to Herod. What about the uneven steps leading to the Temple from the south, why? If not to serve a Jewish custom of the Psalms of Ascents for the worshipers that have ritually bathed in the hundreds of ritual baths along the whole southern part of the Temple Mount. I can go on, but I believe that we explained ourselves on the video already. Good Day, Doron Keidar.
Doron, thanks for your reply. I have watched many of your videos and you have always stated that the source of water for the Temple was the aqueducts and cisterns so please don't imply that you have ever admitted the Gihon Springs could be a source for either Solomon's or Herod's Temple. I am open to your theory but there are several serious questions regarding it that beg to be answered: 1) As you know, Solomon's Temple was built around 1000 BC long before the aqueducts (around 300 BC) that fed the cisterns you claim were below the Temple. Per Scripture, he would have needed "fresh flowing water" not rain water collected in cisterns. Therefore, what was the flowing water source for Solomon's Temple? Are you now admitting it could be a northern branch of the Gihon Springs? 2) From the Bible, we know that Hezekiah redirected the Gihon Springs south. We also know he already had access to water from the springs inside the city walls so, if the Temple had a separate water source north of the city and the walls, why would he redirect the Gihon Springs south and leave the Temple and the supposed water source accessible to the Assyrians to use and destroy? I believe he wanted the water source to the people and the Temple, which were inside the city walls, protected from contamination or destruction by the Assyrians outside the walls 3) Josephus tells us the entire city was leveled to the ground and that the only thing that remained was the fort. If Josephus specifically stated that the fort remained, why would he leave out something as obvious as the four walls of the Temple or the Temple Mount remaining, since you claim it would be much larger than the fort? 4) If Fort Antonia was where you say they found the bathhouse, who destroyed it, when was it destroyed and why? 5) What you call the walls of the Temple Mount have multiple towers and slotted windows like that of many other Roman forts. There are also symbols of the Roman Legion found all around the the walls. Why would the Temple or the Temple Mount need towers and slotted windows and have symbols of the Roman Legion? 6) You talk about millions of Jews ascending up the steps to the Temple yet the steps (as you depict them) are very narrow and lined with buildings on either side. Clearly, they were not designed for a large flow of people. Also, they extend from the shorter side of the pool. How do you know there are not wider steps from the wider (northeastern) side of the pool and passing along the eastern side of the City of David to the Ophel location? Also, how do you know the excavated steps were not designed for the Roman soldiers to have quick access from the fort to the pool, which would be a large gathering place and a potential source of riots? I really want to know your answers and am still trying to decide which theory I support.
@Marcus Sparticus Sir, my concern here as to this video is the vlogger's intent "to dispel and debunk" the "City of David theories" (as he calls them) yet I detect a certain tone of aversion in the way he says it, a tone and intent which could only come from pride and ego (and possibly even hatred from both him and Mr Good) as they seem to have pejoratively referenced those who disagree with their own positions. It's a sad after fact to see someone claiming to be an expert go down the level of blind egotistical superiority complex. I would have wanted to stay and watch but after they've rubbed their "facts" in my face a little too much, I decided to leave and unsubscribe (lols).
Y'all really need to do more research in the Scriptures. If you did, I think you would find that there's no way that the temple could be where an obvious roman fort is.
3) Josephus tells us the entire city was leveled to the ground and that the only thing that remained was the fort. If Josephus specifically stated that the fort remained, why would he leave out something as obvious as the four walls of the Temple or the Temple Mount remaining, since you claim it would be much larger than the fort?
Because you can only level it up to the ground level. You can't dig under the ground until the bedrock level. That's what happened in 70 AD. Later others built upon the lowest level which were Herodian stones. I don't understand why is it so difficult to imagine this.
Grace of God I disagree. The walls of the Temple Mount are above ground and could be leveled. They weren’t leveled because they were the walls of the fort.
@@rflinch Whether it is fort or Temple, you cannot dig out the stones below the ground level. Those who don't understand how the Temple platform was built will have difficulty in understanding this. The Temple platform was made flat by filling in dirt which was held by huge stones. That is the reason you see huge stones at the base of western wall. Secondly the Temple Mount today is of the size about 35 acres. Fort Antonia was not this big. Josephus tells us that the Temple and the fort together were of 6 stadia. This means each side of the Temple was of 1 stadia and each side of the fort was one stadia. 1 stadia is approximately 600 feet. Without knowing the data behind the fort and the Temple many people form an opinion. If you really want to understand more I can suggest a site which has rich details on this subject. It answers all your questions. Read from www.templemountlocation.com
@counselthyself Then fort Antonia won't fit in. People must read history to understand that the Maccabees built the first level fort. Later Herod expanded it and called it Fort Antonia. After 70 AD, Hadrian expanded it to become a larger platform. So, this wasn't a fort which was built from scratch to what we see now.
@counselthyself Many people start telling their opinion about the Temple without studying all the records and archaeological evidences. The first and most reliable record is the Bible. Then Josephus record. Then you have physical evidences like the discovery of Akra in Givati parking lot. As per history this Akra stood to the south of the Temple. If you don't take all the evidence together, it will be like the blind men and the elephant.
The House of Yahweh and the temple are two different things. The Pharisees didn’t keep the laws nor encore Yahweh’s Name. The Leviticus priesthood has been dissolved! Because they all reject Yahweh! But the House of Yahweh has been re-established according to prophecy Isayah 2:2 and Micahyah 4:1! It doesn’t matter where that temple was Yahweh wasn’t there they don’t call on Him. They all practice tradition not the Laws
Just a recommendation....why don't you guys challenge bob cornuke to a youtube debate? This lie (that the temple was in the city of David) being spread must be shattered! Well done on your presentation of the facts...
@@CryForZionMedia Hahah....of course I know your up to it.....that's why I support your cause, as you have truth & history on your side. I have posited this question on other pro-cornuke sites, but they claim you guys avoid it....which I think is rubbish! I think he(cornuke) would avoid it at all costs! Keep up good work!
@@returntozion9287 We try to do our best to provide the truth we know beeing that we live and work in Jerusalem and meet with the top experts on the Temple Mount on a monthly bases and try to keep up with all the latest archaeology that is being uncovered in this beautiful God blessed city. We are not a fly by night expedition team. We live here, walk the Old City streets daily, speak the language know the people etc.
@@CryForZionMedia You do an absolutely fantastic job guys....You have my respect......I feel though that these people that promulgate this nonsense of the temple in the "city of David"....must be called to account and challenged in an open debate on youtube, for all the world to see....then only the gullible will follow them....I mean what chutzpa claiming the Jewish people "forgot the true site" of the temple!
If the 2nd Temple indeed stood where you say it does using your material evidences to back it up, then please explain, as I also seek only the truth, Jesus' words which said "there shall not be left a stone standing...". As I see it, there's an abundance of stones and walls standing where you are pointing the former temple stood. Either Jesus was mistaken, the gospel writer was mistaken, or Josephus was mistaken when he mentioned that the City of David was totally obliterated with not a single stone or wall standing, scorched so badly that no vegetation could grow. (I believe there was a prophetic reference to this event found in the OT though I forget which prophet). Could this not be a clearer representation of Jesus' words?
Great video, one of your best..... Even with all your proof some will refuse to believe the truth because they love the esoteric.... It makes them feel superior....
And by "esoteric" you mean the Holy Scriptures which gives multitudes of diverse details and clues as to the 1st Temple's plausible location, right? Hhmm 🤔
the actual gates are located like 50 ft below. Everyone is trying to argue over something that is buried. For crying out loud, no one new where the city of David was 20 years ago after 2000 years. So now these archidiots claim to know it all when they still do not know where the spot was. If they were honest, they would say, we think it is here or there. When an archelogist says it absolutely there, he is a liar. So who do you believe, an archidiot who believes that Jesus was not real or the State of Israel who believes he was.
I don’t understand.... is there any first temple period road that goes to the dome of the rock/Herod’s temple? In the city of david there are ancient roads that were built during David’s time, but when you leave the city of David, to go to the dome of the rock the roads are Roman. I see no connection between David’s city and 2n temple.
This is not the temple site. Jesus said, "There shall not be one stone left upon another". So there would be no wailing wall left behind. Nor is there immediate access to "living water" [aka a spring.] that is necessary for purification. I believe God kept the real temple site secret so that it would be discovered in His perfect timing, without being interfered with by us puny humans that think we know everything, but are actually blinded by Satan!
Another problem if you have the temple where the dome of the rock was you have Jews coming from around the world if there was an uprising who’s there to stop them
+The Mishna, the mishna - I look at what Jesus himself said of it and the other sayings of man as being wise in their own sight and put mill stones round their necks.
You guys all need to get your stories straight because Eli Shukron says Jacob's ladder is in the city of David which some of you say marks the location of the temple. In the city of David also exists an altar of sacrifice, in the exact location of Jacob's ladder. Colossal coincidence I guess. Either way you guys are collectively giving out conflicting information. Eli says Jacob's ladder is in the city of David and AnaRina says it's up there on the traditional temple mount location.
Amazing these people say Herod's palace can hold upto 10000 people and people believe this also Josephus talks about the temple and they say he was wrong but right about everything else lol
Not forgetting That Jesus said himself not one stone will be left upon another and also not forgetting the giant boulder under the dome of the rock and there forgetting Jeremiah 26:18 also Titus ripped up the foundation of the temple
Why do you both keep talking at same time its stupid for the listener. Let the so called expert speak so we leran from his knowledge ( albeit God has a lot to say of the knowlege of man). Doron is rude and inconsiderate to his guest and to us who want to hear!
I wish the video host stops interrupting the expert and stops interjecting his own words into the conversation while the expert hasn't finished his sentence. Meaning, make the most minimal sound (his voice is even louder and crisper than Mr Good). Just nod your head or just say a soft amen would be fantastic.
All u got is some steps r wider then others really n Joseph needs to let this guy lead no when to stop let the guy interview you kinda rude to just take command u can tell it’s getting frustrating for the other guy
We don't understand the law of Moses but you're saying cisterns are also a source of living water. Oy vey. Sirs you don't know the difference between stangant water and running water.
he keeps mentioning Ron Wyatt, that s the Advenist guy who supposedly had all these monumental discoveries Noah s Ark, Ark of covenant etc,basically an adventurer, who is not even an archeologist. there are a lot of lies in the Adventist church, spirit of lies seems to dwell in the midst of them.
Study simplicity and recognize a kingdom that attainable if you humble yourself as a child and except it! Party is over folks no more searching and Yahweh don’t care who you are going r where you’re from He cares that we keep His Laws! His people are not of a tribe or a clan or a group but those who reverence His Name by keeping His sabbaths feasts and commandments.
Richard Scruggs look up Living God Ministries. Aaron Budjen has the truth of Jesus and the true gospel for any Christian and non Christian in order to understand what Jesus taught and the amazing reasons why people needed Jesus then and now. Please enlighten yourself. If you do, you will help more people than you know to bring them to Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Your writing about this video demonstrates you need clarification. God Bless you in your journey. Amen.
Very interesting .For believers encouraging their faith, but for some unbelievers it will not matter , as they refuse to let go of their opinions even with the evidence staring them in the face! Mr Good is an excellent lecturer and achealogist ! I loved this video !
Wow the speculation in this video is astounding.
Indeed.
These men ignore the fact that a Roman theater has recently been discovered that adjoins the wailing wall underneath, which the Jews would NEVER have allowed if that had been one of the Temple walls. This discovery has been kept mostly quiet because of the implications it has.
Here is Prof. Dan Bahat's interview done by a Christian that did not have any preconceived ideas of the Temple location. At 3:52 the interview begins about the Roman theatre. ruclips.net/video/UzaJPUMXHZI/видео.html
These guys also did a good job of sharing good research on this subject who don't have a bias: ruclips.net/video/h3W9iX0SnCo/видео.html
@@CryForZionMedia You didn't answer my statement that the Jews would NEVER have allowed a Roman theater to adjoin that wall if that had been one of the Temple walls" The videos you directed me to also don't respond to my point.
4) What you call the walls of the Temple Mount have multiple towers and slotted windows like that of many other Roman forts. There are also symbols of the Roman Legion found all around the the walls. Why would the Temple or the Temple Mount need towers and slotted windows and have symbols of the Roman Legion?
they even found the corner stone with the roman stamp on it
This what y say is just rubbish. The Romans had no fort in Jerusalem. Herod has build a city for the Romans and their soldiers with palaces, forts, temples and bathhouses. This city had also a residence a court and a main prison. This city is Ceasarea Maritima where Paul was imprisoned for 2 years. Jerusalem was only visited by the Roman pro-counsel 2 times a year and he had just a small legion with him to prevent a provocation and just had his residence
in the Antonio palace. Saying something different as some evangelic fundamentalist do is not knowing how explosive a Roman presence was on the most sacred place for the Jewish people. The romans did know that and took care not to provoke a rebellion and so Herod build them a new city on the coast as they always did so they could transport more quickly over Sea.
The evangelic hoax to put the Temple in the city of David is just an evangelic political and anti-semetic agenda to proof that Jesus the messiah. It is a typical american way of seeing things that y see how stupid it is. Joseph Good knows very well what he talking about and can proof all the arguments of that evangelic hoax as not correct.
@@antonius3745 That is not correct according to Josephus and Roman records the Tenth Legion was housed in Fort Antonia. Moreover, if you follow Josephus descriptions of the city there is no doubt that Fort Antonia was actually at the “Temple Mount” and the Temple was at the City of David.
@@GEORGEGEORGEIII
The focal point of the Temple Mount was originally a threshing floor. Threshing floors are located outside cites, not within them, because they create dust.
@@GEORGEGEORGEIII , the 10th Legion was stationed in Jerusalem AFTER the Jewish revolt in 70 AD, NOT before that. They were called out from the garrison in Caesarea Maritima to put down the revolt in Jerusalem, and they camped at the Mount of Olives for the siege. After sacking Jerusalem 6 months later, the Legion moved on to sweep up more places, and eventually took Masada in 72 AD.
After all was said and done. The 10th Legion parked itself in Jerusalem's Western Hill. So, no, the Temple Mount was never used to house the 10th Legion.
2) From the Bible, we know that Hezekiah redirected the Gihon Springs in order to block it from the Assyrians. In fact, per 2 Chronicles 32, "When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him. They gathered a large group of people who blocked all the springs and the stream that flowed through the land. 'Why should the kings of Assyria come and find plenty of water?' they said." Why would they go to all that trouble to block the springs from the Assyrians just to leave the Temple and its supposed separate water source accessible to the Assyrians?
I think it's incredibly obvious that the "temple mount" is an old roman fortress. The magnitude of the building could not have been constructed by a meager population of Israelites. You have to remember the original temple was built a thousand years earlier. They wouldn't have moved it when the second temple was built they would have just improved on it. Not to mention underneath the fort is a series of aqua ducts which is more proof Roman construction. The only water source in Jerusalem was the gihon spring and they did not posses the technical knowledge to redirect that water up the mountain away from the natural spring.
The proof that you are correct is found below.
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 temple by attacking the foundation of Antonia 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.
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?
Where was the “tabernacle” at that time?
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 1:39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.
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:
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?
.
Read “Wars of the Jews”, Book 6, chapters 1-7, if you want to understand the temple, and Fort Antonia, and the cloisters that connected them.
www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm#link62H_4_0001
Where is the Water for the cleansing and sanitation needed to support the unimaginable thousands of gallons of blood and fluid from thousands of animals, spouting blood from sacrifices ongoing! Follow the water!
I stand corrected. You address my water concerns. Would love to hear more about the water so necessary for the day to day operations and of course the Feast days where the system was overloaded! Thank you for yer Zeal and ongoing research!
Field Trip: Water Under the Temple | Rico Cortes ruclips.net/video/0r8s9gTHNDk/видео.html
If you had taken the time to watch the full episode, we literally explain the argument being raised for the water source. Just watch the episode and also our other episodes on our RUclips Channel ruclips.net/user/TempleMountReport, where we go into detail on all the issues of the Temple location and why the theory for the City of David does not work.
@@CryForZionMedia Yes. Thankyou.
@@CryForZionMedia Most Excellent!
Great video and Joe Good is truly a great man of HaShem and a great blessing!! May it be soon in our days!! :)
That bumpy rock is not a threashing floor.
Perfect and crystal clear explanation, you need to bring smart people from UNESCO to see this maybe experience enlightenment and see what Jerusalem is.
Thank you! If you liked this video you should also check out Doron's latest travel vlog on Israel called Dust & Stones at: ruclips.net/user/DoronKeidar
@@CryForZionMedia Just subscribed, thanks for the notification, I wish you a lot of success in your work,
@@CardoMaximvs Thank you!
Thank you very much for this video. It has taken my breath away. From all the facts you have laid out it is impossible for the temple to be in the City of David. It is in fact on the Temple Mount. I have read and watched countless videos on this subject and was still confused. You have made it black and white to me the facts of where the temple in fact is. I could listen to Doctor Good all day long. Why do people just not ask him. I cannot thank you both enough. May God Bless you both. AMEN.
Self deception makes you blind to reality, the evidence for the temple of Solomon being in the city of David is overwhelmingly obvious. The traditions of man puts it on what is referred to as the temple mount, but the Holy Scripture says the City of David. Your choice, what man says or what the Scriptures say.
Interesting parallel @8:47 with @16:14. “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
Nice catch ; )
1) As you know, Solomon's Temple was built around 1000 BC long before the aqueducts (around 300 BC) that fed the cisterns you claim were below the Temple. Per Scripture, he would have needed "fresh flowing water" not rain water collected in cisterns. Therefore, what was the flowing water source for Solomon's Temple?
@ Rich Flinchbaugh, as the guys mentioned, the source of the Gihon Spring had other "eyes" that water came out of under the Temple Mount, which was a very big structure. At the end of the day, there are just too many overwhelming archaeological evidence, not hearsay, to prove that Temple Mount is the Temple Mount, and NOT a Roman camp.
@@Birdylockso Joseph Good said the water in the cisterns on the Temple Mount came from the aqueducts but those aqueducts didn't exist at the time of Solomon. Also, if the water on the Temple Mount came from the Gihon Spring, why would they build aqueducts. You are ignoring the facts, which are that there are no connections between the cisterns and the Gihon Springs. Even Joseph admits that. Get your facts straight and try to keep up.
@@rflinch , I see no point to discuss this matter further. I am sorry to admit my own fault in engaging. I realize that there will always be some who believe the earth is flat, vaccines will cause autism, Trump is a great president, etc.
@@Birdylockso add denying those are the walls of a Roman fort to your list of delusional thinking.
Does Mr. Good know why Herod's secret tunnel to the Temple from the fort to the Temple was found in 1867 and uncovered again by the IAA in the 1970s but it's on the south wall of the traditional Mount?
Does he know that the Akra discovered in 2015 was said by Josephus to abut the Temple and overlook it but it is in the City of David?
Does Mr. Good know that to call fellow believers anti-Semites because they disagree with him is not what believers do?
Antonia overlooked the temple, not Akra.
Ms. Sanchez Both overlooked the Temple. Josephus says both.
Joe! It was wonderful to see you at the Temple again!!! I remember everything you taught me about the Temple from years ago. I still have the notebooks to read your notes! You also allowed me to interview Dr. Elat Matzar! I'm keeping up with all of this and I'm so grateful you're giving the information to "bust" the other Temple theory. I've recently worked on documentaries in Israel.....my favorite topic from this this side of Heaven!!!
No it's not the 2nd temple site but rather the fort Antonia site
I like the explanation and evidence from Tuvia Sagiv showing that the Temple was underground between the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
@21:25 Video of the volunteer orientation instruction before assisting in the Temple Mount Sifting Project: ruclips.net/video/aJPnYsBxD04/видео.html
Scripture states that Solomon built the temple on the threshing floor of the Jebusite, and Josephus said after the destruction that you wouldn't know a temple ever existed there, so these people who say they found the foundation stones are full of it. The Temple Mount is the Roman fortress and the little square in the corner they say was the Roman fortress is I believe to be the praetorium
"there are none so blind as those who will not see"
Aside from unanswered questions, this video is riddled with half truths, blatant lies, convenient omissions, and obvious disdain for those who dare to question your belief. I can't list everything I noticed, so a few will have to do.
1. How many times has Jerusalem been through the cycle of build - destroy - build cycle, with Jebusite, Canaanite, Assyrian, Jewish, Roman, Arab, Crusader, Egyptian, and Persian people... (I could go on but I hope you get the point)
2. To get to the level of the Roman occupation archeologists are having to dig down 30-60 feet, in some areas. The ground you walk on today is nowhere near the ground Solomon built his temple on.
3. When did a foundation cease to be part of a building? Much of the temple mount has been rebuilt several times, that is obvious just by looking at the stones, arrow slits, windows, etc.
4. IF the stones at the bottom of the "retaining wall" truly are from Herod's temple, then that would make them the holiest objects on the planet for Jews and some Christens.
5. That rock is a quarry, and the tunnels under the mount are also part of a quarry... (where did the stones come from that Solomon built with?)
6. There are cisterns on top of the mount, there is no "living water". Aqueducts do not count!. There are no references to a spring under the mount, at least that I have been able to find. Living water must be free flowing, natural source.
7. There was a Roman Legion in and around Jerusalem during the second temple period... (the roman leader sent 3/4 of his forces to protect 1 man?) The Roman records and Josephus both state that there was a full Legion present in Jerusalem. Romans would not have forced someone to commit suicide, they would have thrown them.
8. All the people you mention wanting to go to the temple are the ones that were classified "unclean" and would not be allowed on the temple mount until their illness (discharge, wound, infirmity) was totally healed. If a leper with an active case of leprosy used a mikvah then the mikvah itself would be deemed "unclean". You would NOT find anyone that was unclean, or impure, close to the temple, not even on the stairs! The reason for this is plain:
a. you wash at a mikvah to go to the temple
b. you get close to the temple steps and there are sick people around you
c. you try to dodge them, but you get sneezed on
d. you are now considered unworthy to enter the temple
e. start over
9. Exodus 20:26 "Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon." There were no stairs leading up to, or on, the Temple!!
I'm not trying to be rude, mean spirited, demeaning, or anything of the like. I just want to point out that there are always 2 sides to the coin
Thank you for sharing.
The Mikveh was at the bottom of the hill where the steps get started at the Shiloach Pool in the lower part of the City of David. The actual Pilgrimage Road in the City of David have been unearthed. They, the steps, are IDENTICAL to the steps leading to the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount because the Temple was on the Temple Mount. There is no debate about that amongst those who examine the archeological record. The point that is open for debate is whether the Temple was over the spot of the Golden Dome, West of the Golden Dome, or south of the Dome closer to where the Al Aksa Mosque was.
So, where are you going to built the temple mount?
Here is a video tour of the model of the Temple Mount that Conrad Schick made in the 1870’s: ruclips.net/video/vnu5AsZtEGI/видео.html
Blah, blah, blah. Its Fort Antonia.
Their claim that the Romans completely destroyed Fort Antonia falls apart below.
"The Wars of the Jews", Book 6, chapter 2,
7. In the mean time, the rest of the Roman army had, in seven days’ time, overthrown [some] foundations of the tower of Antonia, and had made a ready and broad way to the temple. Then did the legions come near the first court, (12) and began to raise their banks. The one bank was over against the north-west corner of the inner temple (13) another was at that northern edifice which was between the two gates; and of the other two, one was at the western cloister of the outer court of the temple; the other against its northern cloister. However, these works were thus far advanced by the Romans, not without great pains and difficulty, and particularly by being obliged to bring their materials from the distance of a hundred furlongs. They had further difficulties also upon them; sometimes by their over- great security they were in that they should overcome the Jewish snares laid for them, and by that boldness of the Jews which their despair of escaping had inspired them withal; for some of their horsemen, when they went out to gather wood or hay, let their horses feed without having their bridles on during the time of foraging; upon which horses the Jews sallied out in whole bodies, and seized them. And when this was continually done, and Caesar believed what the truth was, that the horses were stolen more by the negligence of his own men than by the valor of the Jews, he determined to use greater severity to oblige the rest to take care of their horses; so he commanded that one of those soldiers who had lost their horses should be capitally punished; whereby he so terrified the rest, that they preserved their horses for the time to come; for they did not any longer let them go from them to feed by themselves, but, as if they had grown to them, they went always along with them when they wanted necessaries. Thus did the Romans still continue to make war against the temple, and to raise their banks against it.
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 temple by attacking the foundation of Antonia 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.
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?
Where was the “tabernacle” at that time?
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 1:39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.
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:
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?
.
Read “Wars of the Jews”, Book 6, chapters 1-7, if you want to understand the temple, and Fort Antonia, and the cloisters that connected them.
He's an old man who has spent his entire life believing that he was an expert on the temple mount, and now he is faced with the prospect that his lifes work has been a total waste of time. Unfortunately the evidence for the temple being in the City of David looks overwhelmingly correct. I'm surprised that the Orthodox Jews are having a hard time believing this as it is written in their own scriptures that the temple of Solomon was built in the City of David.
Bible was written by human beings... so maybe they were wrong
@@brokenangel7972
So was the Koran, The New Testament, The Bhagavad Gita, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Tao Te Ching, the Theravada scriptures. And every other Religious Text on the planet.
@Marcus Sparticus
That's a good comeback sir. Mic drop.
@ Marcus Sparticus, like you, after hearing Martin's theory about the Temple Mount being just a Roman camp, I was like, Wow. All the archaeologists are so dumb. Then, I realized that I need to dig around to hear the other side's argument, and not just take one side on face value.
Well, after taking it all in, plus the most recent archaeological findings, I have come to realize that the 10th Legion was never based at the Temple Mount, the City of David could not be big enough to hold both David's Palace and the Temple. The most recent archaeological find of the Pilgrim Road from the Pool of Siloam to the Temple Mount just proved the massive structure was NOT a Roman fort, but the Temple Mount.
actually the ark of the covenant was "TAKEN OUT OF THE CITY OF DAVID TO THE TEMPLE" so that proves by Scripture that the temple was outside the city of David. 2 Chron 5:2 tells us that the Ark of the covenant was taken ‘out of the City of David’ to the temple built by King Solomon.
If you want to know the location of the Temple Mount, follow the location and stories of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 ce. There’s only one location that works for that story, and that is the Temple Mount.
Really - I've read it and don't agree.
You are perfectly right! It seems people can't even read Flavius Josephus. He states clearly that Titus arrived in Jerusalem on Mount Scopus and from there he had a perfect view on the Temple. (Note : from Mount Scopus you can't see the City of David) I can't understand why stupid people waste their time looking for anything else... unless it's for money or their own fame.
@@privatevideos1886 Only a stupid person would dismiss the holiness of the place where King David had his tabernacle and where the Ark once rested, where oil was brought out by a priest to anoint Solomon. You make many assumptions. I don't intend to engage you on a factual discussion - waste of time with someone so closed. If you want to venerate a pagan place - that's up to you - but isn't that what ancient Israel kept doing?
@@edbenjamin5136 There is a vast difference between David's tabernacle and Solomon's Temple... I agree, waste of time. This is the end of my communication.
You are absolutely correct! If the Temple had been in the lower City of David the Jews couldn't have held off the Roman Army for such a long time during the battle, or inflicted the heavy losses of Roman Soldiers Causing Rome to send additional forces.
I really wish they would just get both sides of this together to discuss the matter because both sides bring up things that the other side does not mention. Like the other side mentions they have found coins under the Mount that are too young to be there. This is so frustrating
For those who have not taken the time to watch the full episode, we literally explain all the arguments being raised in the comments section. Just watch the episode and also our other episodes on our RUclips Channel ruclips.net/user/TempleMountReport, where we go into detail on all the issues of the Temple location and why the theory does not work.
Excellent video and a pleasure to hear an expert explain to the doubters. Yet I see below in the other comments that either they didn't spend the time to watch (too bad) or they completely ignore evidence that is right in front of millions of peoples eyes to see. The 'Roman Legion'? There was only a Cohort of 600 men stationed in Jerusalem pre-rebellion times. The Roman reinforcements were brought up to Jerusalem during the high holidays. Later during the Rebellion 70 AD the Temple was destroyed and that was that.
Oh? You seem to know more than Josephus. Good luck with that 🤔😑
It's my understanding (and I am no expert) that Solomon's temple mount was 500 cubits square... right? And in order to put a 500 cubit square in the City of David, the size of the cubit would have to be much, MUCH smaller than any known historic cubit measurement. Is that correct? Yet another nail in the City of David theory coffin.
Yes, that is exactly right. The 500 cubit measurement does not fit and the ones pushing the myth, give a suggestion for a 600-foot square Temple to make their idea work but then you won't have space for Solomon's palace as well on such a narrow ridge.
@@CryForZionMedia there needs to be a correction, Mr. Armstrong said himself to a little girl whom asked him straight in his eyes if he went to the moon and he said no we didn't, because we don't have the technology. He died with that because the Freemasons gave him the Honorary 33 Degree for lying to the public, and his colleagues were given their higher Degrees as well, I saw them in their Freemason regelya on the lunar surface Disney Sound stage where it was filmed.
@@CarlJohnson-kk4pr
hehehe 😂
@Carl Johnson
Flerfers are a genius lot! Not. 🤨
FYI: Stairs go both ways... if you were walking down to the Temple, you would need those kinds of stairs....
There is a large megalithic quarried stone under the Temple Mount. this stone is referred to as Solomon's Stone. it is very impressive because it and two others that are similar to it are the original foundation for Solomon's Temple.
I understood a threshing floor needed to be flatter then that one, more like a floor? Please, just asking questions
@@badmoonrising8275 AND HIGH ENOUGH FOR A GOOD BREEZE
@@v.p.stolat1217 Breezes aren't always where it's high though.
Ie; Valley breezes, Chinook winds, katabatic winds, Santa Ana winds etc.
Listen, "THE FINAL JUDGEMENT," is at hand, know that what you choose for your eternal fate will be your final choice... You must be very cautious how you choose to live from here on out!
Please there are no lukewarm heavenly bodies in Heaven!!!
Choose now, in your heart, righteousness or evil?!!!
Do not take this as a joke!
This confusion needs to stop....Each viewpoint group should sit together in a panel discussion till all the facts are exposed ,proven and agreed upon...remember to take the ground probably changing at the earthquake at the time of the crucifixion into consideration
I wish this guy would shut up and let Dr Good talk😩
yea,yes, yes,yes,yes, yea yea yea yea! DANG!
"this guy" is the founder of Cry For Zion, the only Temple Mount organization dedicated to educating Christians on the Temple Mount. Mr. Joseph Good was one of our key note speakers at the Temple Mount Jerusalem Convention, the first convention dedicated to Temple Mount education since the second Temple period, where Jewish and Christian experts came under one roof to lecture on the Temple Mount. Correction, Mr. Good does not hold a doctorate as far as I know, even though he has more knowledge on the Temple Mount than most experts I know. This clip was filmed and edited by Scott Cole and in respect to his contribution to this project we did not edit out the questions from this interview where we would have done otherwise. Mr. Good asked me to lead the on location interview so that he would know what to talk about, otherwise he could go on for hours on any given subject since he know so much on the Temple Mount history and archeology. It is probably better to try and understand why people do what they have instead of making nasty comments online.
Respectfully, Doron Keidar
@@CryForZionMedia My remark was not to be disrespectful, it just seems that when people do interviews they talk to much and don't allow their host an ample amount of time to speak. I love listening to Dr Good ,he is very knowledgeable and insightful. My apologies 🕊
@@ThomasAnderson-sd6yt Apology excepted, we are more than happy to hear that people like to hear more from Mr. Joseph Good, he is truly a blessing to many Christians and Jews alike!
@@CryForZionMedia 😃☕
Romans sacked the city, where did they take the bounty? To the fort! So that is why you find pieces of the Israelly pottery and jewerly etc.
What about the water?
More I know the lies more I believe in Jesus... That means at anytime politics can rebuild the temple without religion fight... That also means that the 7 year peace agreement can be signed anytime... Unbelievable!!!!
Temple destroyed no stone left unturned
You contradict yourself in this video. First, you say there is no way to get water from the Gihon Springs to the location of David's palace, however, later, you say the Gihon Springs flow farther north even beyond the Temple Mount. You ignore the fact that the water pressure from the Gihon Springs has been greatly reduced since the time of Herod. Also, you claim the cisterns were the source of water for the Temple yet, if that is true, where did the water to the cisterns come from if not the Gihon Springs? The aqueducts did not exist at the time of Solomon's Temple. Lastly, you misrepresent most of the people who believe the Temple was in the City of David. They don't believe it is the location of David's palace. They believe it is in the area of the Ophel (north of David's palace but south of Fortress Antonia, which you claim to be the Temple Mount).
We do not contradict ourselves, it's the way you understood the point. What we are saying is that the people promoting the Temple in the City of David theory say that it has to be there because of the Gihon. So we made the point that even they pointed out in one of their videos that the Gihon originates north of the Temple Mount, so basically it could be accessed at any point north of the City of David if needed. During Solomon's time, they did not need as much water as they did during the second Temple period, which is why during the Hasmonean period they built aqueducts to add even more water to the Temple Mount besides the cisterns as the need grew. To date, we don't have archaeological evidence of what you claimed that north of the city of David between the Temple Mount plaza existed a Temple structure. In any case, if that would be so the Temple would have to be a very small structure. I have consulted the top archaeologists (Dan Bahat and others) on that theory and in their words, "it is rubbish". It is not mine or Joseph Goods opinion that matters but rather the evidence found in archaeology that matches the biblical account with all the other eye witness account like Josephus. If you have read Josephus's account of the Antonia you would have noticed that he records that it was raised to the ground for the Romans to be able to access the Temple Mount, since the Jewish rebels used it as an impenetrable fortress to hide in. Within the past year, new archaeological finds have shown that the 10th Roman Legion had a large bathhouse even to the western parts of the old city of today that has just been uncovered. (facebook.com/cbnnews/videos/578133069571235) That shows me that we have much more to learn from that period as more archaeological finds come to surface. To date, not one Roman tile with the stamp of the 10th Roman Legion has been uncovered at the Temple Mount as we have found in other places. What we due have in plain sight is remains of the Temple built by Herod as described in the Jewish records exactly. For example, the wave-like patterns on the pillars that are showcased by the Islamic Waqf as you inter the Mugrabi gate on your right match the Mishnaic description and much more Herodian architecture that we know were unique to Herod. What about the uneven steps leading to the Temple from the south, why? If not to serve a Jewish custom of the Psalms of Ascents for the worshipers that have ritually bathed in the hundreds of ritual baths along the whole southern part of the Temple Mount. I can go on, but I believe that we explained ourselves on the video already. Good Day, Doron Keidar.
Doron, thanks for your reply. I have watched many of your videos and you have always stated that the source of water for the Temple was the aqueducts and cisterns so please don't imply that you have ever admitted the Gihon Springs could be a source for either Solomon's or Herod's Temple. I am open to your theory but there are several serious questions regarding it that beg to be answered: 1) As you know, Solomon's Temple was built around 1000 BC long before the aqueducts (around 300 BC) that fed the cisterns you claim were below the Temple. Per Scripture, he would have needed "fresh flowing water" not rain water collected in cisterns. Therefore, what was the flowing water source for Solomon's Temple? Are you now admitting it could be a northern branch of the Gihon Springs? 2) From the Bible, we know that Hezekiah redirected the Gihon Springs south. We also know he already had access to water from the springs inside the city walls so, if the Temple had a separate water source north of the city and the walls, why would he redirect the Gihon Springs south and leave the Temple and the supposed water source accessible to the Assyrians to use and destroy? I believe he wanted the water source to the people and the Temple, which were inside the city walls, protected from contamination or destruction by the Assyrians outside the walls 3) Josephus tells us the entire city was leveled to the ground and that the only thing that remained was the fort. If Josephus specifically stated that the fort remained, why would he leave out something as obvious as the four walls of the Temple or the Temple Mount remaining, since you claim it would be much larger than the fort? 4) If Fort Antonia was where you say they found the bathhouse, who destroyed it, when was it destroyed and why? 5) What you call the walls of the Temple Mount have multiple towers and slotted windows like that of many other Roman forts. There are also symbols of the Roman Legion found all around the the walls. Why would the Temple or the Temple Mount need towers and slotted windows and have symbols of the Roman Legion? 6) You talk about millions of Jews ascending up the steps to the Temple yet the steps (as you depict them) are very narrow and lined with buildings on either side. Clearly, they were not designed for a large flow of people. Also, they extend from the shorter side of the pool. How do you know there are not wider steps from the wider (northeastern) side of the pool and passing along the eastern side of the City of David to the Ophel location? Also, how do you know the excavated steps were not designed for the Roman soldiers to have quick access from the fort to the pool, which would be a large gathering place and a potential source of riots? I really want to know your answers and am still trying to decide which theory I support.
@@rflinch
Excellent Arguments. Many Questions, but Will we get the answers to these excellent questions.
@Marcus Sparticus
Sir, my concern here as to this video is the vlogger's intent "to dispel and debunk" the "City of David theories" (as he calls them) yet I detect a certain tone of aversion in the way he says it, a tone and intent which could only come from pride and ego (and possibly even hatred from both him and Mr Good) as they seem to have pejoratively referenced those who disagree with their own positions. It's a sad after fact to see someone claiming to be an expert go down the level of blind egotistical superiority complex. I would have wanted to stay and watch but after they've rubbed their "facts" in my face a little too much, I decided to leave and unsubscribe (lols).
2 Chron 5:2 tells us that the Ark of the covenant was taken ‘out of the City of David’ to the temple built by King Solomon.
Y'all really need to do more research in the Scriptures. If you did, I think you would find that there's no way that the temple could be where an obvious roman fort is.
@ Andy Alford, it is not a roman fort. Don't buy into that new theory, which has been disapproved.
Also, no problem with tunneling, look at Herod's water tunnel.
3) Josephus tells us the entire city was leveled to the ground and that the only thing that remained was the fort. If Josephus specifically stated that the fort remained, why would he leave out something as obvious as the four walls of the Temple or the Temple Mount remaining, since you claim it would be much larger than the fort?
Because you can only level it up to the ground level. You can't dig under the ground until the bedrock level. That's what happened in 70 AD. Later others built upon the lowest level which were Herodian stones. I don't understand why is it so difficult to imagine this.
Grace of God I disagree. The walls of the Temple Mount are above ground and could be leveled. They weren’t leveled because they were the walls of the fort.
@@rflinch Whether it is fort or Temple, you cannot dig out the stones below the ground level. Those who don't understand how the Temple platform was built will have difficulty in understanding this. The Temple platform was made flat by filling in dirt which was held by huge stones. That is the reason you see huge stones at the base of western wall.
Secondly the Temple Mount today is of the size about 35 acres. Fort Antonia was not this big. Josephus tells us that the Temple and the fort together were of 6 stadia. This means each side of the Temple was of 1 stadia and each side of the fort was one stadia. 1 stadia is approximately 600 feet. Without knowing the data behind the fort and the Temple many people form an opinion.
If you really want to understand more I can suggest a site which has rich details on this subject. It answers all your questions. Read from www.templemountlocation.com
@counselthyself Then fort Antonia won't fit in. People must read history to understand that the Maccabees built the first level fort. Later Herod expanded it and called it Fort Antonia.
After 70 AD, Hadrian expanded it to become a larger platform. So, this wasn't a fort which was built from scratch to what we see now.
@counselthyself Many people start telling their opinion about the Temple without studying all the records and archaeological evidences. The first and most reliable record is the Bible. Then Josephus record. Then you have physical evidences like the discovery of Akra in Givati parking lot. As per history this Akra stood to the south of the Temple.
If you don't take all the evidence together, it will be like the blind men and the elephant.
The House of Yahweh and the temple are two different things. The Pharisees didn’t keep the laws nor encore Yahweh’s Name. The Leviticus priesthood has been dissolved! Because they all reject Yahweh! But the House of Yahweh has been re-established according to prophecy Isayah 2:2 and Micahyah 4:1! It doesn’t matter where that temple was Yahweh wasn’t there they don’t call on Him. They all practice tradition not the Laws
haha.....you are a funny guy!
Just a recommendation....why don't you guys challenge bob cornuke to a youtube debate? This lie (that the temple was in the city of David) being spread must be shattered! Well done on your presentation of the facts...
Sure, we are more than up to it. If Mr Cornuke is up for a debate we will meet that challenge.
@@CryForZionMedia Hahah....of course I know your up to it.....that's why I support your cause, as you have truth & history on your side. I have posited this question on other pro-cornuke sites, but they claim you guys avoid it....which I think is rubbish! I think he(cornuke) would avoid it at all costs! Keep up good work!
@@returntozion9287 We try to do our best to provide the truth we know beeing that we live and work in Jerusalem and meet with the top experts on the Temple Mount on a monthly bases and try to keep up with all the latest archaeology that is being uncovered in this beautiful God blessed city. We are not a fly by night expedition team. We live here, walk the Old City streets daily, speak the language know the people etc.
@@CryForZionMedia You do an absolutely fantastic job guys....You have my respect......I feel though that these people that promulgate this nonsense of the temple in the "city of David"....must be called to account and challenged in an open debate on youtube, for all the world to see....then only the gullible will follow them....I mean what chutzpa claiming the Jewish people "forgot the true site" of the temple!
@@returntozion9287 Amen. Not only chutzpa, but antisemitic if you boil it down to its essence. Temple mount deniers, that's what they are.
I want my 49 minutes back!
If the 2nd Temple indeed stood where you say it does using your material evidences to back it up, then please explain, as I also seek only the truth, Jesus' words which said "there shall not be left a stone standing...". As I see it, there's an abundance of stones and walls standing where you are pointing the former temple stood. Either Jesus was mistaken, the gospel writer was mistaken, or Josephus was mistaken when he mentioned that the City of David was totally obliterated with not a single stone or wall standing, scorched so badly that no vegetation could grow. (I believe there was a prophetic reference to this event found in the OT though I forget which prophet). Could this not be a clearer representation of Jesus' words?
NT was written after 70 CE...its not a prophecy!
I thought a Mikvah had to be fresh running water?
Great video, one of your best..... Even with all your proof some will refuse to believe the truth because they love the esoteric.... It makes them feel superior....
And by "esoteric" you mean the Holy Scriptures which gives multitudes of diverse details and clues as to the 1st Temple's plausible location, right? Hhmm 🤔
@@tuberobotto Thank you for validating my comment.... Stepped on your toes I see.... Sorry, not sorry.....
the actual gates are located like 50 ft below. Everyone is trying to argue over something that is buried. For crying out loud, no one new where the city of David was 20 years ago after 2000 years. So now these archidiots claim to know it all when they still do not know where the spot was. If they were honest, they would say, we think it is here or there. When an archelogist says it absolutely there, he is a liar. So who do you believe, an archidiot who believes that Jesus was not real or the State of Israel who believes he was.
I don’t understand.... is there any first temple period road that goes to the dome of the rock/Herod’s temple? In the city of david there are ancient roads that were built during David’s time, but when you leave the city of David, to go to the dome of the rock the roads are Roman. I see no connection between David’s city and 2n temple.
This is not the temple site. Jesus said, "There shall not be one stone left upon another". So there would be no wailing wall left behind. Nor is there immediate access to "living water" [aka a spring.] that is necessary for purification. I believe God kept the real temple site secret so that it would be discovered in His perfect timing, without being interfered with by us puny humans that think we know everything, but are actually blinded by Satan!
Another problem if you have the temple where the dome of the rock was you have Jews coming from around the world if there was an uprising who’s there to stop them
+The Mishna, the mishna - I look at what Jesus himself said of it and the other sayings of man as being wise in their own sight and put mill stones round their necks.
The fort housed the Roman legio x for 300 yrs
You guys all need to get your stories straight because Eli Shukron says Jacob's ladder is in the city of David which some of you say marks the location of the temple. In the city of David also exists an altar of sacrifice, in the exact location of Jacob's ladder. Colossal coincidence I guess. Either way you guys are collectively giving out conflicting information. Eli says Jacob's ladder is in the city of David and AnaRina says it's up there on the traditional temple mount location.
Amazing these people say Herod's palace can hold upto 10000 people and people believe this also Josephus talks about the temple and they say he was wrong but right about everything else lol
The >>>Tabernacle
you are greatly mis or uninformed! Please watch Joseph Good's and Temple Mount Report videos for more info.
@@sigalsmadar4547 I have seen all the arguments, they don't hold water. One thing we can agree on, we'll all know once we're with the Lord.
Wow, worst case for the Temple Mount yet. This is trash
Amen!
Not forgetting That Jesus said himself not one stone will be left upon another and also not forgetting the giant boulder under the dome of the rock and there forgetting Jeremiah 26:18 also Titus ripped up the foundation of the temple
Why do you both keep talking at same time its stupid for the listener. Let the so called expert speak so we leran from his knowledge ( albeit God has a lot to say of the knowlege of man). Doron is rude and inconsiderate to his guest and to us who want to hear!
I wish the video host stops interrupting the expert and stops interjecting his own words into the conversation while the expert hasn't finished his sentence. Meaning, make the most minimal sound (his voice is even louder and crisper than Mr Good). Just nod your head or just say a soft amen would be fantastic.
All u got is some steps r wider then others really n Joseph needs to let this guy lead no when to stop let the guy interview you kinda rude to just take command u can tell it’s getting frustrating for the other guy
We don't understand the law of Moses but you're saying cisterns are also a source of living water. Oy vey. Sirs you don't know the difference between stangant water and running water.
Will be better if you leave him to talk!!!
This interviewer keeps on trying to show off his knowledge by upstaging the archaeologist . .such a bore
he keeps mentioning Ron Wyatt, that s the Advenist guy who supposedly had all these monumental discoveries Noah s Ark, Ark of covenant etc,basically an adventurer, who is not even an archeologist. there are a lot of lies in the Adventist church, spirit of lies seems to dwell in the midst of them.
no, if you want to know, really know about the "Temple" then follow Rabbi Chaim Richman from the Temple Institute
R Richman is best buddies with and highly respects Joseph Good and his research.
Study simplicity and recognize a kingdom that attainable if you humble yourself as a child and except it! Party is over folks no more searching and Yahweh don’t care who you are going r where you’re from He cares that we keep His Laws! His people are not of a tribe or a clan or a group but those who reverence His Name by keeping His sabbaths feasts and commandments.
Richard Scruggs look up Living God Ministries. Aaron Budjen has the truth of Jesus and the true gospel for any Christian and non Christian in order to understand what Jesus taught and the amazing reasons why people needed Jesus then and now. Please enlighten yourself. If you do, you will help more people than you know to bring them to Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Your writing about this video demonstrates you need clarification. God Bless you in your journey. Amen.