Josephus was there when the Herodian temple stood. He was certainly not around at the time of Solomon's temple. So we can rely upon his writings regarding the Herodian temple.
Without digging everything up and doing carbon dating, and peer reviewed archaeological discovery on everything there's no way to tell where anything was. The only thing is for sure is that Herod built that thing on the top of the hill. Whether it was a giant complex for the Romans or the temple is up for debate.
Acording with this video the Gihon spring was inside Zion (city of David) the Temple of Jerusalem used water from Etam spring located in Bethlehem throught an aqueduct.
Yes, you are correct. These other theories of the Temple sitting on top of where the ancient Roman Fort Antonia is, are laughable as Rome would NEVER allow that. Besides, the Temple was there 10 centuries before Rome came to conquer and occupy Jerusalem so both edifices had to exist at the same time and there are numerous Roman forts still in existence and they're all the same size as the one in Jerusalem.
The one point that Cornuke has stated which has to be addressed is that there is NO Water on the temple mount site. There had and has to be a fresh water source in order to fulfill animal sacrafice in future. Can you address this please!
What Cornuke says is misinformation. There was a fresh water source to the temple mount - there was (and there are still remains of) a pre-roman aqueduct (the lower aqueduct) taking fresh water from the Etam springs on higher ground near bethlehem to the Temple Mount - we have 3 jewish sources and archaeology that confirm this. On the other hand the Gihon was diverted south through Hezekiah's tunnel to the pool of siloam to supply the city - also it was too low to supply the hypothetical temple on top of of the ridge.
@@charliemancuso5690 Can you please quote me the Bible verses which say that the Temple is built on Gihon spring? That is classic misinformation. This idea has become popular just like someone said man evolved from the monkey! It was Ernst Martin's imagination which brought forth that theory. Neither Bible, nor josephus nor any other ancient tell us that Temple was built on Gihon spring.
2 Chronicles 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the LORD appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
I fail to be convinced because the old testament is full of God complaints about the high places of warship of the Israelites. Besides the city of David is clearly on a mount. Maybe not the highest but a mount. I think Israelites have connections to all Jerusalem.
thank you Derek. So this is God battle. All we can do is pray for all people and for Gods will to be done. We are in a spiritual battle. Let us stay on our knees in prayer.
At least 6 ancient tombs and a first century synagogue all point to two concentric squares of streets, the same size as the temple precincts according to Josephus and the Bible, right in the heart of the City. Just saying.
There has been born the perfect red heifer recently, the first in over 2000 yrs. This red heifer won't be around forever so the temple will have to be built very soon.
I have totally enjoyed this presentation and insights. I feel the Holy Spirit with this information. Thank you for your goodness and research. I have been to the temple mount and the City of David on two different occasions. Both places are so significant for our future, but the temple mount is where our Lord and Savior even Jesus Christ will come to His temple from the Mount of Olives. I am so looking forward to that day! Love to all!
The Jewish Temples were clearly located just south of the Roman Fort Antonia (Temple Mount) where Josephus said it was, just before Rome destroyed it. It'll be wonderful for Israel to rebuild their Temple in the City of David, next to the Gihon Spring, where it sat anciently, leaving the ancient Roman Fort alone for an international place of peace. Keep the Dome of the Mosque but get rid of the Al Aqsa Mosque and make the Dome the international symbol of peace.
Thank you...this is excellent...having a conversation with a friend who was incline to believe so many others...I went in search...asking the Lord for the truth...I came across your video...and it witnessed with my spirit and the Word...I have been to Israel many times...and the Temple area was explained by a Jewish Tour guide...so I felt very unsettled concerning the explanation of other teachers...I will share this video with my friend...Shalom and Blessings...this Resurrection Sunday....April 2022....
I love the presentation wonderfully done and very accurate. Very enlivening to me and changed view of where was built thank you very praise all mighty God.
After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD , I don't think they needed a 5 star resort fort . As was mentioned, they could just pitch tents anywhere they wanted. I don't think the Romans had any intentions on building super structures in a besiged Jerusalem to entice flocks of Jews back to cause them more problems. The whole city was their fort . An extra 60,000 roman soldiers . You need more than a fort , you need a whole city.
Except Herod's temple was not on the "temple mount" It was just west of the Gihon spring.. your calling Yahweh a liar by peddling these false claims.. “And I John saw the holy city new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband . . . I will give to him that is a thirst of the fountain [spring] of the water of life freely . . . And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and the [throne of the] Lamb . . . And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of Life freely.” (Revelation 21:2, 6; 22:1, 17) “The symbolism on earth of the heavenly House of God would not be complete without spring waters being within the earthly Temple. It was believed by the early kings and prophets of Israel that if God’s House had no spring within it, it would not be supplied with an appropriate water supply to perform the rituals of purification, and provide other life-giving therapeutic features that issue from the throne of God.” The ancient Jews would sacrifice thousands of animals on Holy days.. A cistern could NEVER be used for sacrifice! truthinscripture.net/2017/10/06/where-was-herods-temple-key-locations/
More proof 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 fort by attacking the foundation for seven days. (Book 6, Chapter 2, Section 7) The passage proves at least part of Fort Antonia remained intact on the day the Jewish temple was destroyed. From War of the Jews, by Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 4, sections 4-5. "4. Now it is true that on this day the Jews were so weary, and under such consternation, that they refrained from any attacks. But on the next day they gathered their whole force together, and ran upon those that guarded the outward court of the temple very boldly, through the east gate, and this about the second hour of the day. These guards received that their attack with great bravery, and by covering themselves with their shields before, as if it were with a wall, they drew their squadron close together; yet was it evident that they could not abide there very long, but would be overborne by the multitude of those that sallied out upon them, and by the heat of their passion. However, Caesar seeing, from the tower of Antonia, that this squadron was likely to give way, he sent some chosen horsemen to support them. Hereupon the Jews found themselves not able to sustain their onset, and upon the slaughter of those in the forefront, many of the rest were put to flight. But as the Romans were going off, the Jews turned upon them, and fought them; and as those Romans came back upon them, they retreated again, until about the fifth hour of the day they were overborne, and shut themselves up in the inner [court of the] temple. 5. So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus’s retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it." All of this provides tremendous evidence that the Dome of the Rock is the true location of Fort Antonia. Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, and that rock is still there today under a dome. If Fort Antonia remained on the day the temple was destroyed, please tell us the location of Fort Antonia today? Where was Solomon anointed as King of Israel, and what is special about its water? 1Ki_1:33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon: 1Ki_1:38 So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule, and brought him to Gihon. 1Ki_1:45 And Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon: and they are come up from thence rejoicing, so that the city rang again. This is the noise that ye have heard. Where is the "castle" described below, from which 470 soldiers were sent to guard only one man? Act_21:34 And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle. Act_21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Act_22:24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. Act_23:10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. (Why did the soldiers go “down” to rescue Paul, and why did he speak to the crowd at the temple from the steps ?) Act_23:16 And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul. Act 23:23 And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; Act_23:32 On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle: to go with him, and returned to the castle: During 73 AD the Jewish leader at Masada said the only thing left of Jerusalem was that which belonged to the Romans. Why would the Romans destroy their own fort, which was named for a Roman? . Link to the writings of Josephus: If you want to understand the temple, and Fort Antonia, and the cloisters that connected them, read "The Wars of the Jews" by Josephus, Book 6, chapters 2-7. www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm#link62H_4_0001
Nowhere in the bible is the Temple connected to the Gihon - which was the water source for the city. Instead as Jewish records and archaeology confirm the Temple was supplied by the Ein Etam springs on higher ground near Bethlehem via an aqueduct which leads to the Temple Mount. In any case the Gihon, down in the valley is too low to supply water to the top of the ridge of the city of david.
@@DerekWalkerOBC 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.
You are just repeating a discredited theory. the 10th legion was only based in jerusalem in Ad 70, and even it it was in the area near the jaffa gate according to josephus.
I'm still studying this issue and from a practical point, I don't think they would pump water up from the Gihon and yes I do have repeat what I believe since I don't have the resources to go there myself, as much as I would like to. From a spiritual point, it would make sense for God to hide the true location till now. Thanks for your research. I just hope they can rebuild the Temple soon, so I can get outta here.
Also, in 67 AD, during the revolt, there was no Roman legion in Jerusalem. The Jewish Zealots had control of Antonia Fortress. The Roman legions were elsewhere outside Jerusalem per Josephus.
"Temple was in City of David by the spring." In summer it moved to the Temple Mount, in autumn it hopped over to the western hill. In winter it would vacation in the Bahamas.
@@danpals7678 "I don't think they would pump water up from the Gihon" But that is exactly what the Martin/Cornuke theory requires. Building a temple high above the Gihon spring will not get the water into the Temple. (See Martin's drawing on www.askelm.com/tdetail.htm - not how high the south-eastern corner is.) You would have to invest massive amount of work or construct massive pumps, which they didn't have. It is only Martin/Cornuke that suggest that the Gihon water was the only water source and would have to be used for the Temple too.
In 2020, archaeologists found that Solomon's pools and aqueducts that fed the temple mount cisterns were constructed by the 6th Roman legion due to the plaster and tiles used. This destroys the narrative that the temple mount was the original temple site.
Pastor, I cannot express how much your video has left me in awe. The amount of research you have put into this documentary is inconceivable! It just goes to show how we can be misled by unsubstantiated theories such as Bob Cornuke's! Your in depth evidence of 'scripture after scripture' is mind blowing. I must admit that Bob Cornuke's claims sound convincing, and I have seen how even his students are misled by his ambiguous claims. Unfortunately he's an archaeologist and not a Biblical scholar and therefore does not 'read between the lines' taking words completely 'out of context'! I was stuck by Mark 13:1-2 Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!”2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Both were referring to the buildings NOT the walls! There was nothing to marvel about the walls! One has only to read the words in context... What's there not to understand? And then there are all the other scriptures you've presented... UP is UP and DOWN is DOWN Why can't people see what's staring at them in plain sight?I feel so fortunate to have found your documentary tonight and I pray that the truth will be revealed to others too, soon.
On Mount Moriah, above the city of David. Near the top is where the threshing floor was located. The peak is where the garden tomb is. 13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.” This is foreshadowing both the Temple and the reconciliation of the world to God.
Lots of people think they know what God is going to do, but God has not told us his plans. He has only given us the "signs of the times" so that we will remain vigilant. If Satan knew what God is up to, he would try to prevent it. So why do you think that you can figure it out?
Do not worry about the place. After the great earthquake in Jerusalem the hill will appear and It’s peak will be the place to build the temple.Just wait for the great earthquake.
The following from the Bible and Josephus prove you are correct. 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
The answer will depend. You must make a choice between (1) the testimony of the scriptures, or (2) the testimony of the "pilgrim from Toledo". Its your choice.
Great video. The main problem that has to be dealt with is the location of Mt. Zion. Using the obvious geography, you seem to conclude that Zion was the highest peak, and make your conclusions from there. However, history tells us something very important about this peak. History indicates that Simon Maccabeus leveled the Holy Mountain for strategic purposes and used it to fill the Valley to the East of the City, as recorded by Josephus. He did this to ensure that Jerusalem would not be sacked as it had in the past. He was proven right, for a time. This perceived desecration caused a split within Judaism that we know as the Essene Movement. Many abandoned the City for desert monastic communities to await the Messiah, as recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls. "so they all set themselves to the work, and levelled the mountain, and in that work spent both day and night without intermission, which cost them three whole years before it was removed, and brought to an entire level with the plain of the rest of the city. After which the temple was the highest of all the buildings, now the citadel, as well as the mountain whereon it stood, were demolished. And these actions were thus performed under Simon." Josephus, Antiquities 13.217
Gil Garza I totally agree about Mount Zion but the temple was not built up on the Temple mount it was Fort Antonia that whole platform is a standard Roman fort I seen Maps you can overlay them right on top of Fort Antonia it helps 6000 soldiers plus support people the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and that thing was the only thing left do a little history research
The bible clearly states the temple was located at the city of david. Let's not forget the evidence that's been found my archeologist at the city of david. The huge rectangular shape we see which is the temple mount was the Roman fort. Big enough to store a legion of soldiers.
the bible actually clearly states the temple was NOT in the City of David (1Kings 8:1). There is no evidence in the city of david for the temple, which is why no professional archaeologist believes it was in the city of david, including eli shukron (he thinks the small cultic area you allude to belonged to melchizedek). History tells us there were no legions based in jerusalem before AD 70 so the antonia was not built for a legion and josephus nowhere says a legion was based there - you have been given misinformation.
@@nlum1964 if you look up in google "roman fort" you will notice all the pictures are the same shape as the temple mount. Even Josephus who lived at that time saw the temple by the city of david. But traditions are still too strong today and that's why many still believe the temple was behind the western wall
@Derek Walker The Golden Dome is not where the Temple was but was where the Fort Antonia was; the square shape can still be seen from above. If that was where the Temple was then go take a donkey to thresh on that cursed rock and see if the donkey doesn't kick the thresher off as that rock is jagged not smooth for threshing and winnowing!
THIS IS A VERY SICK QUESTION. If it is true that the temple was here, why was the area abandoned by the Jews for so long? It was abandoned because this is not where the temple was, otherwise the Jews would not have simply abandoned it. In the seventh century Caliph Omar came here and was given the key to Jerusalem by the Patriarch. The Caliph invited prominent Jewish families to settle in Jerusalem. They never made claim on this 35 acres rectangular raised platform with high walls. This fancy naming the area as "Temple Mount" only happened in the middle ages. The Crusaders captured it and called themselves the Knights Templar. The Royal Arch Freemasons followed suit. But the UN has preserved it as Haram as Sharif, an Islamic heritage site.
How much trouble could it be to orient each photo and drawing with N-S-E-W compass indicators? It would;d make things so much clearer for those of us who have never been there.
Problem right through Derek Walker's account - along with all his other stuff is that he takes the Bible out of context and cotext and adds his own, therefore making everything he saya cotext's. He criticises other people (sometimes correctly) but adds his own as the truth. He should consider the water supply just for starters and look at surveys done by Warren in the 1800's and he will see that the supply does not meet the huge amounts we would expect the temple to require if it was where he puts it. If you take the archeological plans over all the years (I have them) and work out the measurements of the first temple it is easy to find correlations on the plans (even before the last earthquake) and both temples were built in the same place prior to Herods expansion. At that time the SE corner was added which puts the East gate in that corner with a stone arched bridge to Mount of Olives. The Golden Gate is Sulemein the Magnificent 1550's and too high. So much is wrong with Derek's account to even fit in with what is known. Time will tell though!
You bring up some valid points such as the peak of Mt Olives being opposite the Temple. But what happened to Paul in Acts 21-23 when a group of soldiers were dispatched to save Paul from a mob who took him from the Temple, it says they ran down to them. Also the Bible describes the Roman Fort as a 'castle'. The whole of Jerusalem were after Paul's blood, in order to protect Paul, they needed an actual fort. As such I don't agree that the Roman army pitched tents around Jerusalem. The place was seething with zealots and was a political hotspot. They required a fort or 'the castle' of Antonia.what interests me is that the Castle supposedly houses 600 men. But Scripture says that present was the chief captain 'chilliarchos' who was the commander of a thousand soldiers. Acts 22:30 he again brought Paul 'down' into their (the priests and Sadducees) council. I'm admittedly undecided but am leaning more towards Bob Cornukes theory because of Eli Shukrons discoveries in the City of David and because the Western Wall is still standing.
The events in acts 21-23 fit perfectly with the classic temple mount. At the north end of the temple mount is a natyral rock scarp on top of which the antonia fort was built which looked down upon the temple-mount. A greek lexicon defines the word as 1., the commander of a thousand soldiers, or 2. the commander of a Roman cohort (a military tribunal) or 3. any military commander. Shrukron's discovery of what might be a small cultic area in the city of david has no bearing on the location of the temple (it is not where Cornuke places the temple) - Shukron himself does not believe the temple is in the city of david although Cornuke tries to make it appear that way.
Derek Walker Ah ok thank you! I have more to mull over. I'm flying over with my Mum and Sister to Israel next month for the first time, God willing. I will keep in mind what you've said. I suppose that the AntiChrist wouldn't have to broker a 7 year peace plan if the site wasn't as controversial as the Temple Mount. Btw what was your favourite place/site to visit in Jerusalem?
Derek Walker Yes I saw that, I was really impressed by the findings and can't wait to visit of all the places. However I was wondering, why would they need a large water tank on the property? What was its purpose to have it so near a burial and crucifixion grounds? Sorry to ask too many questions.
The water tank and 1st century winepress are evidences that it was a GARDEN, because the Bible says Joseph's tomb was in a Garden - John 19:41 "There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden" the garden is tucked around the corner from the crucifixion site - but it is all against the same rock face
The following proves that the area now known as "The Temple Mount" is the remains of Fort Antonia (Herod's Praetorium, Acts 23:35), based on the writings of Josephus. The following comes from "Wars of the Jews", by Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section 8. Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, on the highest hill, and had passages which went "down" to the Jewish temple. Based on Acts 21:31-40, we know the fort was above the temple, because the soldiers had to go down to the temple to rescue Paul from the mob. Later, Paul spoke to the crowd below from the steps. Josephus described the tremendous size of the fort as "it might seem to be composed of several cities". It also blocked the sight of the temple on the north side. Therefore, Avi Yonah's modern model cannot be correct. What building in the modern city of Jerusalem is built upon a gigantic rock, and is named for that rock? Answer this question and you will understand the location of the Roman fort. "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." In "Wars of the Jews", Book 6, Chapter 4, section 5, Josephus revealed that the Romans used Fort Antonia as a based to attack the temple on the day the temple was destroyed. Where are the remains of the fort today? "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." Watch the RUclips video... The "Temple Mount" is Roman Fort Antonia, by Leeland Jones, if you want to see the truth. .
Derek, God Himself has proved you right concerning the location of the first and second Temples. In describing the plans for the third Temple God tells Ezekiel where it must be built. Ezekiel 43:10-12 - '10 “As for you, son of man, [b]describe the temple to the house of Israel, so that they will be ashamed of their sins; and let them measure its plan [in detail]. 11 If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple (house), its layout, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it down in their sight, so that they may keep its whole design and all its statutes and do them. 12 This is the law of the temple: Its entire [c]area all around on the top of the mountain [d](Mount Moriah) shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the temple.' (The Amplified Bible). Verse 12 clearly shows the location of all the Temples. It is clearly The Temple Mount - "The top of the mountain." God's own word has shown it's location. It cannot be argued against.
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
So, if it's not under the Dome of the Rock, and it's not in the City of David, then the threshing floor must have been on that middle platform just above David's city, which is still near the Gihon spring. Unless you can prove another theory... No one would put a threshing floor on the uneven rocky peak of a mountain. It needs a large flat area, within reach of water to give the animals that were working there. And after the Temple was built, it would be close so the priests can walk back without fear of contamination - a tunnel would do nicely. The location of the Antonine Fort, or even Herod's Temple, is irrelevant because we are looking for the Temple that was there before. And just because there are some big stones still standing, they were foundations for a large part of the city, not necessarily exclusive to the Temple, which is entirely missing without any trace. If it was originally where the Dome now is, it was a strange place for a threshing floor. And Herod's Temple was not fully approved for how he built it, despite its beauty, and not just because he was an Idumaean, so maybe he put it in the wrong place. Where was the Hasmonean Temple, or the one before? There is now no trace, not one stone left atop another. And lacking any real proof, the new Temple can be put wherever a consensus opinion can be reached.
Would the priests have went along with it if Herod built it in the wrong place? The Zarrababell temple was still standing at the time of Herod and we know the elders of Nehemiah's day could remember where the location of Solomon's temple stood. They should have! Solomon's temple stood for at least THREE CENTURIES! So that is why the thinking is if we can locate where Herod's temple stood the original site of Solomon's temple would be known. Also there is no indication that Jesus disputed the location of Herod's temple.
@@calvinjackson8110 Ru comedy me? Everybody knows that mate! Do you even know what a mount means? when you say temple mount? what comes first to your idea? You cannot simply construct something without making it's foundation stiff and firm that too on a high mountain which is 2400ft? If mount moriah (GOD's holy mountain) the irregular surfaced mountain is mounted with a rectangular mount (as bible says 500cubits mount) to install the temple on it and you think you can find the threshing floor on the mountain which had gone through alot of constructions, reconstructions and expansions and buildings in all these 3000 years? You still think you can find the threshing floor? USE YOUR BRAIN BRO!
The title suggests something academically sound, but I was disappointed. Statements like "the Jews must know where the temple is" is not academic, and hard to support when Josephus writes that post-destruction one would never know the temple stood where it did followed by large periods of time where Jews were expelled from Jerusalem. The Romans completely rebuilt the temple mount area and we have no idea of what they did. I've seen evidence that the pattern of al aqsa and the dome follows a Roman temple footprint, not the Jewish temple footprint. Saying "it's called the temple mount, so the temple be on the top of a mount" is really terrible logic. It's also written that the temple could not be seen from the north, so it couldn't have been where the dome is, very visible from the north. I don't believe Martin's view is correct, but the key issues with the dome location for the holy of holies aren't addressed here. The only theory that seems to fit all objections is theory that places the temple on the southern half of today's mount area, with Antonia on the northern half of the mount area. I'd love to see critiques of that.
I believe it is a valid point to suggest the Jews would not forget where their holiest place was, especially considering their special gift of maintaining and handing down their traditions over thousands of years, and the extensive written records on the temple written in the 2nd - 4th centuries. The fact they are sure that they know where their Temple was should be respected and has been confirmed by Leen Ritmeyer (The Quest). It also makes sense that the Temple holy of holies would be at the local peak of moriah rather than half way up the slope (where the Angel stood between heaven and earth in the originating story). The Temple Mount is in fact trapezoid, quite unlike the standard Roman rectangular design. Your understanding that the Temple could not be seen from the north does not come from Josephus but from Cornuke's (or Martin's) mishandling of Josephus. The actual quote is Wars 5.246: “The hill Bezetha was, as I said, cut off from Antonia; the highest of all the hills, it was encroached on by part of the new town and formed on the north the only obstruction to the view of the Temple.” Bezetha = Skull Hill (Golgotha) which is higher ground to the north of Temple Mount. As you can see, the actual quote provides no problem to the classic view - in fact it is an accurate statement perfectly consistent with the classic view.
The Gihon's water has been made bitter after an earthquake. It is unsuitable for temple use and the temple was never there. There is in fact 4 or 5 cisterns of water on the temple mount and that water is always there even during dry periods. They are covered with stones at the moment. The Arabs at one point were trying to drain them because they thought the water would affect the Dome of the rock and, as fast as they were trying to do that, the water kept coming. As we know, they won't let anyone excavate there or anything else so, no one knows at present where that water is coming from. Jewish records state that the water came from the pools of Solomon at Etan near Bethlehem via an aqueduct. The Gihon spring was the water supply for the people in the old city NOT the temple. Hezekiah also later on, had the spring water diverted further south to the pool of Siloam making it of no use to the then temple anyway.
surgeneral108 This guy's got a pedigree and reputation to protect - No Gihon spring or scriptures saying God's temple.was in the city of David - Mt. Zion I had someone tell me that The City of David wasnt in Jerusalem.
Nicely done. God was and is pleased with His work , His creation, His people ( the Jewish people) of whom He guided and it was He they called the one and only God. God gave specific instructions to be followed. God never gives up on His creation offering a rainbow of promise to never flood the earth again. I am grateful that He had me in mind in His creation and knew my name and all my days before I was born. If He is the same yesterday , today and forever surely the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem is special in His eye.
you can see a pile of them preserved near the south west corner of Temple Mount (near robinson's arch). They were thrown down from above and cracked the first century pavement - also visible.
@@DerekWalkerOBC How do you know they are from the Temple and not an ordinary wall from Roman occupation or stones cleared to build the Dome of the Rock ? The list of possibilities is enormous..
I don't have an oar in this discussion because Christians do not need the new temple to be built and we can trust when God says the citadel will be in its proper place. I am open-minded; however, I to not believe Haram is the temple mount based on various pieces of evidence. I've realized the main proof text that traditionalists cite is not in conflict with a city of David location. 1 Kings 8 is said to claim the ark was brought up out of the City of David directly to the temple. When you read the whole chapter, it becomes clear that the tabernacle/ark were removed to where Sukkot was celebrated for 7 days. The whole point of Sukkot is to live in booths/tents and they essentially encamped around the tabernacle/ark just as they had in the wilderness. Then the ark was brought back and and placed in the holy of holies, and the temple dedication was another 7 days. The proof claiming the temple must have been out and up from the City of David is not supported. The Dome of the Rock was built over the church of the holy wisdom, which commemorated a place tied to Jesus, not the Jewish temple. The inscriptions in the Dome also make it clear that the site was connected to Jesus because they state God begot no one and thus deny his sonship. The spring tower was filled over (why it was found underground), which supports that a larger fill-in project once took place. The foundation that is said to be David's palace is Eilat Mazar's interpretation - it has not been proven.
I can immediately see 2 contradictions in your inventive reconstruction: (1) it contradicts the parallel account in 2Chronicles 5-7, which makes it clear the dedication took place before the feast of tabernacles, so that the people were dismissed at the end of the festivities on the day after the 8th day of the feast of tabernacles, that is the 23rd (tabernacles starts on the 15th) - see 2Chronicles 7:10. Indeed it makes much more sense that they would dedicate the temple before the feast of tabernacles rather than after it, for that way the new temple would be at the heart of the feast, and the required sacrifices for tabernacles could be offered, now that the temple and its altar had been dedicated to God. (2) By making 1Kings 8:1,4 two journeys (one being the return journey of the other) rather than the same journey, you get a clear contradiction because in each case they GO UP - the Hebrew verb in both cases is to ASCEND. So first the ark is taken from the city of david in an uphill direction and then it is returned to the city of david by means of another uphill journey. This is only possible in an Escher picture!
@@DerekWalkerOBC I;m enjoying your videos - particularly the Ezekiel 38 material. I just have to disagree with you on this point. Both passages are consistent in the timeline: officials gathered in Israel for the feast, the tabernacle and ark were moved, then there were sacrifices, then priests placed the ark in the holy place. In 1 Kings 8 there is more detail. We know that the altar was dedicated after the ark was placed in the holy place. The Shekinah arrived after the ark was placed and Solomon prayed for the people in his dedication. We know the first set of sacrifices were so many they were uncountable, but the second set was given a specific number. We know that the whole time was 14 days. I'm untroubled by the "up" and "up" - it suggests to me Sukkot was celebrated on a hill, perhaps where Jesus would eventually be crucified. If the temple was such a tall edifice with such a dizzying height as described by Josephus, it too would be the direction of up to place the ark in the holy place. You can believe what you want, but I'm relieved to have this one conflict satisfied in my mind. It doesn't prove the City of David location, but it does not conflict with either.
when the true sacrifice of the ceremonial law was made (the crucifixion of Jesus Christ), Lord God tore away the veil in the temple. No more sacrifices, no more phisical temples... just one, spiritual.
if the Gihon spring does not flow from the area, its not the temple mount. Id ask you what did jesus say about the jews? Who did he say was their father?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on all this. Unsure about the interpretation though. Current ' location of temple' wouldn't be ideal as a threshing floor would it? Your efforts are appreciated though.
Have you seen the video by Dr. Christian Widener on the subject of the location of the Temple? He says that there is another area of exposed bedrock on the Temple Mount that better resembles a threshing floor, under the Dome of the spirits.
@@jimratter5561 yes that is what I thought too... did you see the documentary on the third temple, it's online, the architect there says that place can't be the place but further down the hill it might be there... Eli shukran I think he's called...
@@kalkhan816 no, I haven't seen that one but will try to find it. There is a lot at stake in this controversy! I think you would enjoy Dr Christian Widener's RUclips video on the subject. He also mentions the alignment of the Eastern gate with the Holy if Holys that can be historically verified.
Based on the New Testament and the writings of Josephus, the area now known as "The Temple Mount" is the remains of Roman Fort Antonia. Fort Antonia (Herod’s Praetorium, Acts 23:35) was built by Herod and given to the Romans. It was used to house the thousands of Roman soldiers needed to police the ancient city of Jerusalem. In Acts 23:23 the Romans sent 470 soldiers to escort one man. Are we to believe all of the soldiers from the fort were sent with this one man? During 73 AD the Jewish leader at Masada said the only thing left of Jerusalem was that which belonged to the Romans. Mar 15:16 Then the soldiers led Him away into the hall called Praetorium, and they called together the whole garrison. Act_23:35 he said, "I will hear you when your accusers also have come." And he commanded him to be kept in Herod's Praetorium. Based on Acts 21:31-40, we know the Roman fort was above the temple because the soldiers had to go “down” to rescue Paul from the mob at the temple. Paul later spoke to the crowd below from the steps. 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.” 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. In the passage below we find the Romans used Fort Antonia as the base to attack the temple during 70 AD. They had previously gained access to the fort by attacking the foundation for seven days. (Book 6, Chapter 2, Section 7) The passage proves at least part of Fort Antonia remained intact on the day the Jewish temple was destroyed. From War of the Jews, by Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 4, sections 4-5. "4. Now it is true that on this day the Jews were so weary, and under such consternation, that they refrained from any attacks. But on the next day they gathered their whole force together, and ran upon those that guarded the outward court of the temple very boldly, through the east gate, and this about the second hour of the day. These guards received that their attack with great bravery, and by covering themselves with their shields before, as if it were with a wall, they drew their squadron close together; yet was it evident that they could not abide there very long, but would be overborne by the multitude of those that sallied out upon them, and by the heat of their passion. However, Caesar seeing, from the tower of Antonia, that this squadron was likely to give way, he sent some chosen horsemen to support them. Hereupon the Jews found themselves not able to sustain their onset, and upon the slaughter of those in the forefront, many of the rest were put to flight. But as the Romans were going off, the Jews turned upon them, and fought them; and as those Romans came back upon them, they retreated again, until about the fifth hour of the day they were overborne, and shut themselves up in the inner [court of the] temple. 5. So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus’s retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it." All of this provides tremendous evidence that the Dome of the Rock is the true location of Fort Antonia. If at least part of Fort Antonia remained on the day the temple was destroyed, where is that part of Fort Antonia now? Watch the RUclips video… The “Temple Mount” is Roman Fort Antonia, by Leeland Jones, to see the truth with your own eyes. .
The biggest power on Earth has just been moved to recognise Jerusalem as capital of Israel, how long before they are moved to say that Israel should have their Temple rebuilt? Is their anything in prophecy, Derek, that relates to this specific event today.
not specifically, but it is interesting it is 50 years from 1967 and 100 years from 1917 - it will probably move things forward toward the fulfilment of Ezek 38.
It's definitely been an interesting day. I saw the Turkish president and the Jordanian King complaining about it, and Putin has just announced he is standing for another term, which of course he will win. I think your 'mountains of Israel' has just moved a notch closer. It reminds me of the scripture 'The Kings heart is in the Hand of The Lord, and like a river He guides it where He wants.' Exciting times. I think now that it's getting closer we're starting to see The Holy Spirit ushering things along.
1-25-18, having watch the videos of Bob Cornuke, and 2 of your videos I am able now to begin to think that Cornuke is wrong in his conclusion of temple location. I will continue to compare this information between the two views. I see your points in creating an argument/trouble if Christians push this location Cornuke is pushing. Thank you.
I beg to differ with you sir when you reason that because the Jews always visited Jerusalem they couldn't possibly forget where the temple was located. In 70 AD Hadrian destroyed the city and until 638 AD the city was not called 'Jerusalem' but it was called Aelia Capitolina. For several consecutive generations Jews were forbidden to enter the city and since the site of the temple was destroyed it is not only possible but even likely that the true site of the original temple was lost. The Antonia fortress was located north of the temple as Josephus says and it even blocked the view of the temple from the north side it is only logical that the 'temple' mount was the location of the 10,000 personnel fort.
i think it highly unlikely that the Jews would forget the location of their most holy site. there has always been a jewish presence in the land and of all nations they preserved excellent written records. we have detailed jewish writings from the 2nd and 3rd centuries describing the temple in all its details. The classic temple mount agrees perfectly with Josephus - the site of the Antonia is indeed north of the Temple area and was on a rock scarp on higher ground. The idea that it held 10,000 is pure myth made up by Martin/Cornuke. Nowhere does Josephus say that - he uses the word Tagma = troop (unspecified number). The Bible speaks of a cohort (600) stationed there. Martin fails to mention that Josephus ised practically the same description for Herodium as for the Antonia - no way was there a legion at Herodium. History tells us that no legion was stationed in Israel in the time of Herod the Great (the local legions were based in Syria). A legion was only based in Jerusalem from AD 70.
The Holy of Hollie's was at the highest point of Mount Moriah, where the temple mount exists today! There was a square where the Ark of the Covenant sat. Also please note that the Jews were scattered to other places and not allowed to return until recently.
Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be completely destroyed as we read at Mathew 24 verse 1 and 2 "Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” God allowed the temple to be destroyed because of the rebelliousness of the jews. Worship directed to God at the temple was no longer acceptable to God. The marvelously built temple was done away with by God's permission.
Is this Angel who stands on the highest point of the mount Moriah the same Angel which the flaming sword who stands on gate of the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve has to leave the Garden of Eden?
this guy uses circular thought for his arguments.he goes i circles.he never proves his theory regardless how popular his theory is.basically the temple mount is believed to be where the temple stood because of tradition.
Abraham was told by God to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac at mount Moriah refers to Golgotha the highest peak of mount Moriah ie 777 m asl, where son of God Jesus Christ our Lord was crucified. The 2nd temple of Solomon was thrown down and there was not left one stone upon another by the Roman in 70 AD. The only structure left stand still was the Roman's fortress . The temple mount was the Roman's fortress, when in 145 AD Hadrian built a worship spot of Jupiter stature exactly at where the dome of the Rock stand today. in 340 AD when Constantine treated Christianity as the formal religion he changed the place where Jupiter stature stand to a church building. And when the Islamic troop of Ottoman Turkey invaded and conquered Jerusalem, they destroyed the cross and replaced with a mosque which is dome of the rock today. Our God and Lord will never let His holy place to be taken, so He let the original Holy of holiest spot to be kept and will be re revealed in the right time before His 2nd coming, hallelujah.
i agree that is where Abraham offered Isaac and Christ was crucified - the 2nd Temple has to also be on Mount Moriah (2Chron 3:1) - this means it must be on the classic Temple Mount and it excludes the city of David. The temple building were destroyed as Jesus predicted but the retaining walls for the mount itself were not destroyed. Josephus tells us that the Roman camp which remained was near the jaffa gate where the 3 towers were left standing and a section of the western wall - not where the classic TM is. Josephus also tells us that the Romans destroyed the Antonia to its foundations, so to say that it was the only thing standing contradicts Josephus. Also it is simply not true biblically that God never lets his holy Temples get defiled or destroyed - hence the Abomination of Desolation.
The dome of the rock is not a mosque. It's a monument or shrine to where muslims claim Mohammed stepped from the rock onto his horse and rose to heaven. Mohammed never visited any mosque in Jerusalem as they claim because there was no mosque in his time there.. The actual mosque is further away and has a small silver coloured dome. It was not the 2nd temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. but the temple that Herod built which was an extension of the 2nd temple ( not Solomon's) . The Romans also pretty much raise the antonia to the ground as well and it never occupied what we know as the temple mount area. Constantine's Christianity is questionable as well because he still followed many pagan practices along with his mother. The Lord did indeed let His holy place be captured and destroyed as was evident by the destruction of all 3 temples to date.
I DISAGREE: to the point that Christians who claim that THAT location is actually fort Antonia “ plays” into the hands of the enemy (Islam), actually doesn’t.... because of this, IF it is true that that is NOT the true location of the Temple, then the same logic that applies to Jews also applies to Muslims... it means that’s not the actual place that Mohammed a ascended up on his “steed”.... so they as well have NO claim to that location either..... WHY? Because that’s NOT the true LOCATION to be laying claim TO.... so NO it doesn’t infer or “ mean” that Jews have no claim to the Temple, it just means the location to witch they are claiming is inaccurate ..... plus, if it IS the wrong location, why would you want to continue following and believing something that is a lie( not saying it is or isn’t in my personal opinion) I just want to bring up my disagreement on the argument that to claim such things, plays into the hands of the Muslims is inaccurate.
Your points are excelant, however your visual is very sadly lacking. Trying to figure out from a flat photo as to where these locations are is impossible. Too much and too many to keep track of. You need to either place a picture over the other to show where these places changed to or where placed in actuallity. Sorry but I need a better visiual. Maybe I am alone in this.
By 14:30 He has made 4 comments without any evidence of such. “Muslims put the Mosque on the Temple Mount in defiance “ . Says who? Josephus, a historian who was alive during the destruction of the 2nd temple, they claim he was mistaken when he says that the fort (Antonia) and the Temple were 600 feet apart. They ignore that Paul went DOWN to the city via the steps from the fort meaning the fort held the higher ground. Those that argue against assertions in this video bring proof. A Pilgrim that was at The Holy Septcru looked east and said ALLthey could see was the fort. Not a temple ? Evidence.
I think you are adding to scripture. It is Mt Zion NOT Mt Moriah. read the scriptures again. Where would the Roman Legions be housed? Not in the small corner Antonia. It would hold about 600 Not 6,000+. This requires the Temple Mount. A location where they would be to themselves in a city of their own. You are making the claims more valid and reasonable and believable of Martin/Cornuke. Also the Gihon spring was a gusher like "The Ole Faithful" In the USA. But, as for the Moslems claim to The Temple Mount they have NO claim to any land of Israel. All of Israel was given by God to HIs people.
The problem is that you assume everything Cornuke/Martin says is true. You should take scripture as your starting point and then learn from the real experts (archaeologists and historians) about the rest. For example 2Chronicles 3:1 plainly says it was on Mount Moriah (Cornuke cuts out this reference to Moriah whenever he quotes this verse. The Temple Mount also came to be called Mount Zion, to distinguish it from the city of david (the original zion). Again the idea that the Antonia was built to hold a legion is a pure invention by Martin. Historical records say the 4 legions were based in Syria (the romans never based legions in the territory of client kings like herod the great) - the 10th legion was only established in Jerusalem from Ad 70 onwards. The word Josephus uses is not the word for legion but 'tagma' which can be any size of troop (see its use in 1Cor 15:23 - 'each in his own order (troop= 'tagma'). The Bible speaks of a cohort (500-600) based at the Antonia - so i prefer to go with that. Josephus uses exactly the same 'self-sufficient city' description for Herodium - a fact Martin fails to mention. Even if the Gihon was originally a thousand times stronger (for which there is no evidence) there is no evidence of a channel that would take it to where the Temple would be (the vertical warrens's shaft only goes part way), and in any case when Hezekiah built his tunnel to divert the gihon waters south to the pool of siloam, the siphon pressure system required to deliver the water to the Temple would no longer be able to work. Also the jewish records from the 2nd century tell us the water for the temple was delivered from Etam near bethlehem by an aqueduct, and this aqueduct has been discovered and it goes to the Temple Mount and it was built before the time of Herod the Great. So all that is going for the Cornuke/Martin theory is an impressive work of the imagination. I do agree with you on the the last point - but the Temple Mount is the special point of contention, and this theory - if it took hold - would weaken the Jewish position, and their claim that the temple mount is theirs - it misleads christians, causing them to come into agreement with the radical muslims who are trying to rewrite history and say that the jews have no special connection with the temple mount.
Current estimates are 100,000 jews living in jerusalem in AD 33 (today's jerusalem is almost a million and it is vastly bigger than 1st century jerusalem) - the city of david itself could only hold a few thousand at most. Obviously there were more people at the feasts which is why there were reinforcements sent from Caesarea at that time - probably another cohort which would be stationed at Herod's Palace and in the grounds adjacent to the antonia. When the antonia was build by Herod the Great he had his own forces to govern israel - not roman legions because he was a client king of rome. You also refer to another theory originated by Martin that Jesus was crucified on the Mount of Olives, which contradicts his Temple theory, as the City of David is opposite the Silwan hill not the mount of olives. The basis for it is that the roman soldier saw the veil rip in half, but the bible never specifically says that, which is why few people bought into that theory. However you are quite wrong to say that the Mount of Olives is too low for such a viewing - Martin was correct in pointing out that from the top of the Mount of Olives you would have a good view to the Temple below over the top of any walls. However the top of Olives is an unlikely place for romans to do crucifixions. Cornuke has now tried to make Martin's 2 theories consistent by saying Golgotha was on the Silwan hill opposite the city of david, which is much lower than the city of david, so whatever issue you have with the view from olives, it would be a more problematic issue from silwan. Also Silwan hill is a most unlikely place for roman crucifixions.
Hebrews 9 verse 24 reads"For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, so that he now appears before God on our behalf" The above scripture shows that Jesus as high priest offered to God the value of his perfect sacrifice before God himself in heaven. This is the reality the temple was pointing to; a better priesthood and a better sacrifice. Are you proposing a return to the elementary things of the past when the reality has arrived? Assuming you rebuild the physical temple that once stood in Jerusalem what sacrifice would you offer there? Is there any need for animal sacrifices? You know the answer is an emphatic No!
I might be wrong but is there not a verse that says 'Peace, peace, but there will be no peace'? I noticed Trump kept using the word peace. Maybe that verse relates to this.
Every thought that is not based on scripture will fail. Scripture says that it was built on Mount Moriah. Did you hear that loud and clear? 2 Chronicles 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
Seems to me all we do is find the location of mount Moriah and we will know where the temple of Solomon was located, AND we need to know where was mount Moriah in SOLOMON'S time.
Thank you, brother. You have helped my thinking on the subject greatly. "Almost [they] persuadest me." The other view does not need accommodation, almost appearing rational.
Jesus directed attention to the things that truly mattered most. Read his words directed at woman who pronounced a blessing directed at what she thought was of high value but received correction from our teacher at Luke chapter 11 verse 27 and 28 "Now as he was saying these things, a woman from the crowd called out to him: “Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you!” 28 But he said: “No, rather, happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!" Of what use is a Temple amidst godlessness, hate and violence? The very things that led to rejection of the jewish nation by God and his allowing the previous temple to be done away with ? Obedience is better than sacrifice.
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/did-i-find-king-davids-palace/ At the end of this article, Mazar states she found a broad flat area that is not associated with any ruins and it exists independently. I ask, is it possible she found the threshing floor? She even speculates the walls she found could have been for a new temple, but then dismisses the idea because it's not Mt. Moriah (though we know Jerusalem is a slope of Moriah).
Is Our Heavenly Father Humble? Is His Son Our Lord Humble? Did Jesus go right to the top of mount Herman for His Transfiguration? Did the pagans go right to the top of The high places! Jesus Christ was Crucified outside The City Did Jesus Prophesy truth! Not 1 stone will be left on top of another This Generation 40 years 70 ad fulfilled, The old Covenant dissolved. The New Creation Through The New Covenant cut in His Own Blood 🩸 If another temple is built in modern Jerusalem Q. Who will sit in it ⁉️ God says A Strong Delusion will come! God is Spirit God is Love Adam Sinned (All people in his loins) Jesus Christ was hung back on The Tree ✝️ 1 Sin, 1 Remedy! Jesus wants All to be Saved 🕊 The old Covenant is shadows Jesus Christ is The Substance We are His Temple filled with The Holy Spirit living waters!
your assumption is false - nowhere does the bible or josephus say there was a legion stationed in Antonia - that is a myth made up by the promoters of their theory. Josephus refers to a tagma = troop of unspecified size. The Bible refers to a troop = 600. Roman history tells us that a legion was only based in Jerusalem after Ad 70 (before that there were 2 legions in Syria). Because Herod the Great was a client king of rome - he would not have legions based in his land, and he built the antonia.
@@DerekWalkerOBC 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:
ALL of the city that Solomon extended including the temple was known as Zion or Mt. Zion. The name of Mt. Moriah ceased to be used after the temple was built. There never was an actual mountain called Zion. It was the name synonymously used with the name Jerusalem for the city.
Why did God allow an enemy to destroy his temple? With effect from Pentecost 33ce when holy spirit was poured out on Gods true worshippers why was it not necessary to have a physical temple and earthly priesthood?
Jesus made it clear (in Matthew 23-24) that the Temple was destroyed because that generation of national Israel rejected Him as Messiah (Daniel 9:26), but that does not exclude future Temples of God in Israel, which are prophesied (Daniel 9:27, 2Thess 2, Rev 11, Matt 24:15-16, Ezek 40-48)
@@DerekWalkerOBCThe temple at Jerusalem, levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices pictured the coming of the messiah who would offer one time perfect sacrifice to atone for all sin thereby removing the need for offering animal sacrifices in the future. What purpose would a physical temple at Jerusalem serve under the new dispensation?
@@anthonyk9692 In the Tribulation it will be used by God for a final outreach to Israel by the 2 witnesses who will preach the gospel there - revelation 11 - the temple will remind israel that only by blood is there forgiveness.
@@DerekWalkerOBC Please bear in mind that "Israel" was rejected by God owing to her unfaithfulness and rejection of his son and he is no longer dealing with that Nation in a special relationship. See Jesus words rejecting Israel at Mathew 23 verse Jesus indicated at John 4 verse 24 verse 37 and 38 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her-how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you" Faithful individual Jews who accepted Jesus and became christians received Gods approval but God was dealing with them as individuals not collectively as a Nation. Further Jesus said to he ( samaritan woman at John chapter 4 verse 21 “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father" True worship is no longer centered in Jerusalem". The persons who survive the tribulation are shown as coming out of all nations and tribes and languages of the earth as we read at Revelation 7 verse 9 reads "After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb"
@@DerekWalkerOBC The temple that we should focus our attention on is the original...the reality itself of God great spiritual temple in the heavens where Jesus offered the value of his ransom sacrifice to God. No earthly temple can possibly receive attention now when the reality has arrived
No - the bible specifically says the opposite (1Kings 8) - the Ark was taken out from the City of David UP to its place in the Temple to the higher elevation in the north (Ps 48)
the wailing wall is part of the western wall of the retaining wall of the temple mount and on the edge of Mount Moriah - the dome of the rock is at the top of mount moriah and is where the holy of holies was.
I have been inside the Dome on the Rock. There are signs inside telling you not to touch the rock, but I did anyway. You can feel the souls of all the people who have been sacrificed on that rock. It is the perfect place to carry out human sacrifice. The rock is about three and one half or four feet above the land around it. It is obvious that the priest or medicine man and the sacrificial person could stand on the rock, while all the worshipers stood around, in about a 50 foot radius. The priest would whip up the audience to a height of spiritual fervor, sacrifice the willing person, the lamb, and everybody would go away refreshed.
The dome of the Rock is where the Ark of the Covenant sat! There is a square channel for the Ark of the Covenant to sit in. If you watch this video, the sacrificial alter was very close east of the dome of the rock (very close by).
The following proves that the area now known as "The Temple Mount" is the remains of Fort Antonia (Herod's Praetorium, Acts 23:35), based on the writings of Josephus. The following comes from "Wars of the Jews", by Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section 8. Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, on the highest hill, and had passages which went "down" to the Jewish temple. Based on Acts 21:31-40, we know the fort was above the temple, because the soldiers had to go down to the temple to rescue Paul from the mob. Later, Paul spoke to the crowd below from the steps. Josephus described the tremendous size of the fort as "it might seem to be composed of several cities". It also blocked the sight of the temple on the north side. Therefore, Avi Yonah's modern model cannot be correct. What building in the modern city of Jerusalem is built upon a gigantic rock, and is named for that rock? Answer this question and you will understand the location of the Roman fort. "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." In "Wars of the Jews", Book 6, Chapter 4, section 5, Josephus revealed that the Romans used Fort Antonia as a based to attack the temple on the day the temple was destroyed. Where are the remains of the fort today? "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." Watch the RUclips video... The "Temple Mount" is Roman Fort Antonia, by Leeland Jones, if you want to see the truth. .
@ That's not what the Bible says... there will be a third temple and it will be directly on the location of where the other temple's once existed. God knew everything before anything ever existed also!
The so called temple mount was the location of the Roman Fortress Fort Antonia which housed 6000 soldiers and 4000 support personnel according to Bob Cornuke's theory. The real temple was located in the City of David.
Watch Joseph Good - Temple of Israel. There are 4 videos in the series, and he shows diagrams. Parts 3 and 4 address these other theories, but you have to have the foundational understandings of kadusha (sanctity) and patterns to get the full impact of the rest of the study. BTW he is good friends with and highly respected by Rabbi Richman and others at the Temple Institute. There are many ancient holy places that have been desecrated over the centuries, but that doesn't mean God can't cleanse them. After all, He is the God of Redemption!
the 3rd Temple that gets desecrated in the Tribulation will be destroyed at the 2nd Coming, then Christ will set up and reign from the 4th Temple in the Millennium (Ezekiel 40-48)
Thank you Pastor Walker for your presentation. It sheds great light on an age old argument. Many people believe that the temples stood on the original Mt. Zion which I don't agree with. In your diagram, there isn't a Mt.Zion there where I would have assumed it to be re next to or near David's palace area. Was it actually a mountain or more like a hill? Why has Solomon's palace never been found? I also watched a video that agrees with what you say however, that man believed that where the ark of the covenant stood was not the area under the dome of the rock but where that other little dome that stands on the columns is. Sorry, I can't remember what he called it . He claims that there is a cover stone there and the block where the ark stood is underneath it. That would place the temple of Solomon and the next temple a little further from where Herod's temple stood but still on the mount itself. He also showed photos of 4 cisterns on the mount covered with stone that are full of water even during dry times. The muslims tried to drain them because they thought it might affect the dome but, as fast as they were trying to do so, the water just kept filling back up. Of course with them having control, there has been no excavation to find out where the water is coming from. He suggested that at one time, there was an aqueduct that came from the pools of Solomon to feed the needs of the temple (not to be confused with the aqueduct that Pilot built ). Oddly enough, I did see those pictures on the mount some years ago showing the muslims trying to drain the cisterns. Also, with the fortress of Antonia, would it have possibly taken up the length of the northern wall, I mean ran the length of it? If the 10th legion was permanently in Jerusalem, they wouldn't have been living in tents surely. There would have been up to ten thousand soldiers, servants, aids etc. Could you possibly shed some light on that? It would be all so easy if people actually referred to God's word in the first place with these things.
Thanks - the original Zion = City of David. When the Temple was built on the Mount (Hill) above the city that Mount (Mt.Moriah) was then called Mount Zion (the Mount belonging to Zion) because now Zion (Jerusalem) was now expanded to include this Mount. The name Mount Zion replaced Mount Moriah which is why Moriah is no longer mentioned after 2Chronicles 3:1. This also explains why we only hear about a Mt Zion after the Temple was built. The asumption Mount Zion = City of David is therefore false. The City of David is built on a ridge at the base of Mount Zion (=Temple Mount). The Cornuke/Martin theory has the Temple near the David Palace area. Ken Klein, embarassed by the lack of a mount there, makes the absurd claim that there was originally a huge mount there that was cut down by the hasmonians (which is contradicted by the archaeology), but then this requires him to have the temple to the north of that area (so that it avoids this destruction), so his temple is not on mount zion (which contradicts the scriptures) - such confusion! Solomon's Palace was destroyed by the Babylonians and any remains were covered over by the expansion of the Temple Mount to the South by the Hasmonians and King Herod. The dome you refer to the dome of the spirits - but there is no evidence for this theory. Yes, it is a fact that an aqueduct has been found taking water from the Pools of Solomon to the Temple Mount and the jewish records confirm this was the main water source for the temple. This aqueduct is known to be there from before the time of Herod and was no doubt originally built by Solomon and later repaired many times - the Hasmonian repairs have been verified. Later Pilate built another aqueduct. This is common knowledge but is ignored by those who claim the classic Temple Mount had no running water source. The whole idea that the Antonia was built by Herod to contain a legion is a total myth that comes from Martin. I find the main problem in dealing with this new theory is that many proponents accept every assertion and individualistic interpretation of Josephus as gospel truth without checking it with the experts and other sources. Josephus uses the word Tagma in connection with the Antonia which can refer to any size troop - the Bible speaks of a cohort (500-600) stationed there, which fits the classic Antonia, with some troops possible having to camp in its grounds during feast times. Josephus uses practically the same flowery description of it being like a city for another palace of Herod - Herodium (which Martin conveniently forgets to mention) - and it that case he could not have meant it was like a city of 10,000. Herod was a client king and Romans never stationed legions with such kings - so he did not build the Antonia for a legion. Historical records tell us that the 4 local legions were based in Syria, not Israel. The legions only entered the land for the Jewish war (AD 66-73), and the 10th legion was only permanently stationed in Jerusalem from AD 70 onwards, and Josephus tells us that their camp was on the higher ground on the west side of the old city, NOT on the east where the Temple Mount is. (Josephus locates it near the 3 towers that guarded Herod's Palace, which the Romans kept standing as a reminder of the strength of the original fortifications). This is near today's Jaffa gate, either to its south, or to its north where the christian quarter is now.
Thank you so much! This really is interesting. I know that Martin and Cornuke are way off with what they say. I did have some confusion when it came to the Romans in Jerusalem though. I don't have access to historical records mainly because I don't know who to look up! I have just purchased the works of Josephus so, I can read for myself now. It's no wonder people are lead astray when they don't ask questions or find out for themselves. Thank goodness I'm the nosy type and need to find these things out.
![Yeat & Quavo - 5BRAZY [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4XxnTAwyxus/mqdefault.jpg)
Ask Josephus he was there and described the location of the temple, and it was not up on top of that rock
Josephus was there when the Herodian temple stood. He was certainly not around at the time of Solomon's temple. So we can rely upon his writings regarding the Herodian temple.
Without digging everything up and doing carbon dating, and peer reviewed archaeological discovery on everything there's no way to tell where anything was. The only thing is for sure is that Herod built that thing on the top of the hill. Whether it was a giant complex for the Romans or the temple is up for debate.
the original King Solomans temple is in city of David next to Gihon spring they have found evidence of the original temple at that location.
Acording with this video the Gihon spring was inside Zion (city of David) the Temple of Jerusalem used water from Etam spring located in Bethlehem throught an aqueduct.
Yes, you are correct. These other theories of the Temple sitting on top of where the ancient Roman Fort Antonia is, are laughable as Rome would NEVER allow that. Besides, the Temple was there 10 centuries before Rome came to conquer and occupy Jerusalem so both edifices had to exist at the same time and there are numerous Roman forts still in existence and they're all the same size as the one in Jerusalem.
Very good well explained and back up with scripture God is amazing thanks Pastor Derek
Pastor Derek is my favorite teacher on complex Bible truths, God bless and enlighten you further.
The one point that Cornuke has stated which has to be addressed is that there is NO Water on the temple mount site. There had and has to be a fresh water source in order to fulfill animal sacrafice in future. Can you address this please!
What Cornuke says is misinformation. There was a fresh water source to the temple mount - there was (and there are still remains of) a pre-roman aqueduct (the lower aqueduct) taking fresh water from the Etam springs on higher ground near bethlehem to the Temple Mount - we have 3 jewish sources and archaeology that confirm this. On the other hand the Gihon was diverted south through Hezekiah's tunnel to the pool of siloam to supply the city - also it was too low to supply the hypothetical temple on top of of the ridge.
Was the Bible wrong when it states the Gihon Spring is where they built it?
Charlie Mancuso Nope!
@@DerekWalkerOBC Well said! Cornuke is walking on grounds he is not permitted. He will have to give account for his many misinformations.
@@charliemancuso5690 Can you please quote me the Bible verses which say that the Temple is built on Gihon spring? That is classic misinformation.
This idea has become popular just like someone said man evolved from the monkey! It was Ernst Martin's imagination which brought forth that theory. Neither Bible, nor josephus nor any other ancient tell us that Temple was built on Gihon spring.
2 Chronicles 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the LORD appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
I fail to be convinced because the old testament is full of God complaints about the high places of warship of the Israelites.
Besides the city of David is clearly on a mount. Maybe not the highest but a mount. I think Israelites have connections to all Jerusalem.
thank you Derek. So this is God battle. All we can do is pray for all people and for Gods will to be done. We are in a spiritual battle. Let us stay on our knees in prayer.
At least 6 ancient tombs and a first century synagogue all point to two concentric squares of streets, the same size as the temple precincts according to Josephus and the Bible, right in the heart of the City. Just saying.
I would like to hear more about what you say. Can you please tell more?
@@whatzit9459 Click on my icon and follow the links
There has been born the perfect red heifer recently, the first in over 2000 yrs. This red heifer won't be around forever so the temple will have to be built very soon.
I have totally enjoyed this presentation and insights. I feel the Holy Spirit with this information. Thank you for your goodness and research. I have been to the temple mount and the City of David on two different occasions. Both places are so significant for our future, but the temple mount is where our Lord and Savior even Jesus Christ will come to His temple from the Mount of Olives. I am so looking forward to that day! Love to all!
The Jewish Temples were clearly located just south of the Roman Fort Antonia (Temple Mount) where Josephus said it was, just before Rome destroyed it. It'll be wonderful for Israel to rebuild their Temple in the City of David, next to the Gihon Spring, where it sat anciently, leaving the ancient Roman Fort alone for an international place of peace. Keep the Dome of the Mosque but get rid of the Al Aqsa Mosque and make the Dome the international symbol of peace.
Thank you...this is excellent...having a conversation with a friend who was incline to believe so many others...I went in search...asking the Lord for the truth...I came across your video...and it witnessed with my spirit and the Word...I have been to Israel many times...and the Temple area was explained by a Jewish Tour guide...so I felt very unsettled concerning the explanation of other teachers...I will share this video with my friend...Shalom and Blessings...this Resurrection Sunday....April 2022....
I love the presentation wonderfully done and very accurate. Very enlivening to me and changed view of where was built thank you very praise all mighty God.
Thank you. You clearly explained where the temple will be.
After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem
in 70 AD , I don't think they needed a 5
star resort fort . As was mentioned, they could just pitch tents anywhere
they wanted. I don't think the Romans
had any intentions on building super structures in a besiged Jerusalem to
entice flocks of Jews back to cause them more problems. The whole city
was their fort . An extra 60,000 roman soldiers . You need more than
a fort , you need a whole city.
Excellent presentation Pastor Derek! Always great to discover new facts from the eternal Word of God!
Ok, but why doesn't the Temple Mount platform face a true eastward direction?
The Temple Platform was constrained by the steep slopes going down to the kidron valley. The important thing was that the Temple itself faced east.
Except Herod's temple was not on the "temple mount" It was just west of the Gihon spring.. your calling Yahweh a liar by peddling these false claims.. “And I John saw the holy city new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband . . . I will give to him that is a thirst of the fountain [spring] of the water of life freely . . . And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and the [throne of the] Lamb . . . And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of Life freely.” (Revelation 21:2, 6; 22:1, 17) “The symbolism on earth of the heavenly House of God would not be complete without spring waters being within the earthly Temple. It was believed by the early kings and prophets of Israel that if God’s House had no spring within it, it would not be supplied with an appropriate water supply to perform the rituals of purification, and provide other life-giving therapeutic features that issue from the throne of God.”
The ancient Jews would sacrifice thousands of animals on Holy days.. A cistern could NEVER be used for sacrifice!
truthinscripture.net/2017/10/06/where-was-herods-temple-key-locations/
More proof 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 fort by attacking the foundation for seven days.
(Book 6, Chapter 2, Section 7)
The passage proves at least part of Fort Antonia remained intact on the day the Jewish temple was destroyed.
From War of the Jews, by Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 4, sections 4-5.
"4. Now it is true that on this day the Jews were so weary, and under such consternation, that they refrained from any attacks. But on the next day they gathered their whole force together, and ran upon those that guarded the outward court of the temple very boldly, through the east gate, and this about the second hour of the day. These guards received that their attack with great bravery, and by covering themselves with their shields before, as if it were with a wall, they drew their squadron close together; yet was it evident that they could not abide there very long, but would be overborne by the multitude of those that sallied out upon them, and by the heat of their passion. However, Caesar seeing, from the tower of Antonia, that this squadron was likely to give way, he sent some chosen horsemen to support them. Hereupon the Jews found themselves not able to sustain their onset, and upon the slaughter of those in the forefront, many of the rest were put to flight. But as the Romans were going off, the Jews turned upon them, and fought them; and as those Romans came back upon them, they retreated again, until about the fifth hour of the day they were overborne, and shut themselves up in the inner [court of the] temple.
5. So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus’s retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it."
All of this provides tremendous evidence that the Dome of the Rock is the true location of Fort Antonia. Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, and that rock is still there today under a dome.
If Fort Antonia remained on the day the temple was destroyed, please tell us the location of Fort Antonia today?
Where was Solomon anointed as King of Israel, and what is special about its water?
1Ki_1:33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:
1Ki_1:38 So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down, and caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule, and brought him to Gihon.
1Ki_1:45 And Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon: and they are come up from thence rejoicing, so that the city rang again. This is the noise that ye have heard.
Where is the "castle" described below, from which 470 soldiers were sent to guard only one man?
Act_21:34 And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle.
Act_21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?
Act_22:24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.
Act_23:10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. (Why did the soldiers go “down” to rescue Paul, and why did he speak to the crowd at the temple from the steps ?)
Act_23:16 And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.
Act 23:23 And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night;
Act_23:32 On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle:
to go with him, and returned to the castle:
During 73 AD the Jewish leader at Masada said the only thing left of Jerusalem was that which belonged to the Romans. Why would the Romans destroy their own fort, which was named for a Roman?
.
Link to the writings of Josephus: If you want to understand the temple, and Fort Antonia, and the cloisters that connected them, read "The Wars of the Jews" by Josephus, Book 6, chapters 2-7.
www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm#link62H_4_0001
Is the Gihon up on the temple mount? No it isn't. That means that the temple wasn't there either.
Nowhere in the bible is the Temple connected to the Gihon - which was the water source for the city. Instead as Jewish records and archaeology confirm the Temple was supplied by the Ein Etam springs on higher ground near Bethlehem via an aqueduct which leads to the Temple Mount. In any case the Gihon, down in the valley is too low to supply water to the top of the ridge of the city of david.
It is a siphon spring.
@@DerekWalkerOBC
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.
Temple was in City of David by the spring. Dome of the rock is Roman city fortress for 10th legion.
You are just repeating a discredited theory. the 10th legion was only based in jerusalem in Ad 70, and even it it was in the area near the jaffa gate according to josephus.
I'm still studying this issue and from a practical point, I don't think they would pump water up from the Gihon and yes I do have repeat what I believe since I don't have the resources to go there myself, as much as I would like to. From a spiritual point, it would make sense for God to hide the true location till now. Thanks for your research. I just hope they can rebuild the Temple soon, so I can get outta here.
Also, in 67 AD, during the revolt, there was no Roman legion in Jerusalem. The Jewish Zealots had control of Antonia Fortress. The Roman legions were elsewhere outside Jerusalem per Josephus.
"Temple was in City of David by the spring."
In summer it moved to the Temple Mount, in autumn it hopped over to the western hill. In winter it would vacation in the Bahamas.
@@danpals7678 "I don't think they would pump water up from the Gihon"
But that is exactly what the Martin/Cornuke theory requires. Building a temple high above the Gihon spring will not get the water into the Temple. (See Martin's drawing on www.askelm.com/tdetail.htm - not how high the south-eastern corner is.) You would have to invest massive amount of work or construct massive pumps, which they didn't have. It is only Martin/Cornuke that suggest that the Gihon water was the only water source and would have to be used for the Temple too.
In 2020, archaeologists found that Solomon's pools and aqueducts that fed the temple mount cisterns were constructed by the 6th Roman legion due to the plaster and tiles used. This destroys the narrative that the temple mount was the original temple site.
Pastor, I cannot express how much your video has left me in awe. The amount of research you have put into this documentary is inconceivable! It just goes to show how we can be misled by unsubstantiated theories such as Bob Cornuke's!
Your in depth evidence of 'scripture after scripture' is mind blowing. I must admit that Bob Cornuke's claims sound convincing, and I have seen how even his students are misled by his ambiguous claims. Unfortunately he's an archaeologist and not a Biblical scholar and therefore does not 'read between the lines' taking words completely 'out of context'! I was stuck by Mark 13:1-2
Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!”2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Both were referring to the buildings NOT the walls! There was nothing to marvel about the walls! One has only to read the words in context... What's there not to understand?
And then there are all the other scriptures you've presented... UP is UP and DOWN is DOWN
Why can't people see what's staring at them in plain sight?I feel so fortunate to have found your documentary tonight and I pray that the truth will be revealed to others too, soon.
On Mount Moriah, above the city of David. Near the top is where the threshing floor was located. The peak is where the garden tomb is.
13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”
This is foreshadowing both the Temple and the reconciliation of the world to God.
Lots of people think they know what God is going to do, but God has not told us his plans. He has only given us the "signs of the times" so that we will remain vigilant. If Satan knew what God is up to, he would try to prevent it. So why do you think that you can figure it out?
Ezekiel 11:23 The glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city and stood over the mountain which is east of the city.
Everybody is ⏰ up that's so great to know, knowledge is increasing upon those who read the word of God Almighty. Praise God and Holy Word.
It seems to me that what is increasing is CONFUSION, not knowledge.
Do not worry about the place. After the great earthquake in Jerusalem the hill will appear and It’s peak will be the place to build the temple.Just wait for the great earthquake.
Derek Walker, I wish you the best, NO Ill will.
the first thing we need to find is Ft. Antonia then you will find the original Temple. Math and Josephus dont lie
This man speaks truth, in Jesus name.
The following from the Bible and Josephus prove you are correct.
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
The answer will depend. You must make a choice between (1) the testimony of the scriptures, or (2) the testimony of the "pilgrim from Toledo". Its your choice.
Great video.
The main problem that has to be dealt with is the location of Mt. Zion. Using the obvious geography, you seem to conclude that Zion was the highest peak, and make your conclusions from there. However, history tells us something very important about this peak.
History indicates that Simon Maccabeus leveled the Holy Mountain for strategic purposes and used it to fill the Valley to the East of the City, as recorded by Josephus. He did this to ensure that Jerusalem would not be sacked as it had in the past. He was proven right, for a time.
This perceived desecration caused a split within Judaism that we know as the Essene Movement. Many abandoned the City for desert monastic communities to await the Messiah, as recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
"so they all set themselves to the work, and levelled the mountain, and in that work spent both day and night without intermission, which cost them three whole years before it was removed, and brought to an entire level with the plain of the rest of the city. After which the temple was the highest of all the buildings, now the citadel, as well as the mountain whereon it stood, were demolished. And these actions were thus performed under Simon." Josephus, Antiquities 13.217
Gil Garza I totally agree about Mount Zion but the temple was not built up on the Temple mount it was Fort Antonia that whole platform is a standard Roman fort I seen Maps you can overlay them right on top of Fort Antonia it helps 6000 soldiers plus support people the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and that thing was the only thing left do a little history research
Gil Garza
Derek.. you are right.
The Temple is now being built in the hearts of believers in Jesus Christ our body’s are the Temple of the Great God.
The bible clearly states the temple was located at the city of david. Let's not forget the evidence that's been found my archeologist at the city of david. The huge rectangular shape we see which is the temple mount was the Roman fort. Big enough to store a legion of soldiers.
the bible actually clearly states the temple was NOT in the City of David (1Kings 8:1). There is no evidence in the city of david for the temple, which is why no professional archaeologist believes it was in the city of david, including eli shukron (he thinks the small cultic area you allude to belonged to melchizedek). History tells us there were no legions based in jerusalem before AD 70 so the antonia was not built for a legion and josephus nowhere says a legion was based there - you have been given misinformation.
You are absolutely correct. The temple mount today is the location of the roman fort antonia.
@@nlum1964 if you look up in google "roman fort" you will notice all the pictures are the same shape as the temple mount. Even Josephus who lived at that time saw the temple by the city of david. But traditions are still too strong today and that's why many still believe the temple was behind the western wall
@Derek Walker The Golden Dome is not where the Temple was but was where the Fort Antonia was; the square shape can still be seen from above. If that was where the Temple was then go take a donkey to thresh on that cursed rock and see if the donkey doesn't kick the thresher off as that rock is jagged not smooth for threshing and winnowing!
Wow! What an idea sarji! 😂
Where did you get you’re degree from?
THIS IS A VERY SICK QUESTION. If it is true that the temple was here, why was the area abandoned by the Jews for so long? It was abandoned because this is not where the temple was, otherwise the Jews would not have simply abandoned it. In the seventh century Caliph Omar came here and was given the key to Jerusalem by the Patriarch. The Caliph invited prominent Jewish families to settle in Jerusalem. They never made claim on this 35 acres rectangular raised platform with high walls. This fancy naming the area as "Temple Mount" only happened in the middle ages. The Crusaders captured it and called themselves the Knights Templar. The Royal Arch Freemasons followed suit. But the UN has preserved it as Haram as Sharif, an Islamic heritage site.
How much trouble could it be to orient each photo and drawing with N-S-E-W compass indicators? It would;d make things so much clearer for those of us who have never been there.
Problem right through Derek Walker's account - along with all his other stuff is that he takes the Bible out of context and cotext and adds his own, therefore making everything he saya cotext's. He criticises other people (sometimes correctly) but adds his own as the truth. He should consider the water supply just for starters and look at surveys done by Warren in the 1800's and he will see that the supply does not meet the huge amounts we would expect the temple to require if it was where he puts it.
If you take the archeological plans over all the years (I have them) and work out the measurements of the first temple it is easy to find correlations on the plans (even before the last earthquake) and both temples were built in the same place prior to Herods expansion. At that time the SE corner was added which puts the East gate in that corner with a stone arched bridge to Mount of Olives. The Golden Gate is Sulemein the Magnificent 1550's and too high.
So much is wrong with Derek's account to even fit in with what is known. Time will tell though!
I concur on your points, and recent discoveries have found more evidence on the matter.
You bring up some valid points such as the peak of Mt Olives being opposite the Temple.
But what happened to Paul in Acts 21-23 when a group of soldiers were dispatched to save Paul from a mob who took him from the Temple, it says they ran down to them. Also the Bible describes the Roman Fort as a 'castle'. The whole of Jerusalem were after Paul's blood, in order to protect Paul, they needed an actual fort. As such I don't agree that the Roman army pitched tents around Jerusalem. The place was seething with zealots and was a political hotspot. They required a fort or 'the castle' of Antonia.what interests me is that the Castle supposedly houses 600 men. But Scripture says that present was the chief captain 'chilliarchos' who was the commander of a thousand soldiers. Acts 22:30 he again brought Paul 'down' into their (the priests and Sadducees) council.
I'm admittedly undecided but am leaning more towards Bob Cornukes theory because of Eli Shukrons discoveries in the City of David and because the Western Wall is still standing.
The events in acts 21-23 fit perfectly with the classic temple mount. At the north end of the temple mount is a natyral rock scarp on top of which the antonia fort was built which looked down upon the temple-mount. A greek lexicon defines the word as 1., the commander of a thousand soldiers, or 2. the commander of a Roman cohort (a military tribunal) or 3. any military commander. Shrukron's discovery of what might be a small cultic area in the city of david has no bearing on the location of the temple (it is not where Cornuke places the temple) - Shukron himself does not believe the temple is in the city of david although Cornuke tries to make it appear that way.
Derek Walker
Ah ok thank you! I have more to mull over. I'm flying over with my Mum and Sister to Israel next month for the first time, God willing. I will keep in mind what you've said. I suppose that the AntiChrist wouldn't have to broker a 7 year peace plan if the site wasn't as controversial as the Temple Mount. Btw what was your favourite place/site to visit in Jerusalem?
The Garden Tomb (see my video Mount Moriah, golgotha and the garden Tomb)
Derek Walker
Yes I saw that, I was really impressed by the findings and can't wait to visit of all the places.
However I was wondering, why would they need a large water tank on the property?
What was its purpose to have it so near a burial and crucifixion grounds? Sorry to ask too many questions.
The water tank and 1st century winepress are evidences that it was a GARDEN, because the Bible says Joseph's tomb was in a Garden - John 19:41 "There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden" the garden is tucked around the corner from the crucifixion site - but it is all against the same rock face
Very interesting Derek. Thanks so much. I am undecided But I did find it interesting that Cornuke missed Moriah in his quote.
The following proves that the area now known as "The Temple Mount" is the remains of Fort Antonia (Herod's Praetorium, Acts 23:35), based on the writings of Josephus.
The following comes from "Wars of the Jews", by Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section 8.
Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, on the highest hill, and had passages which went "down" to the Jewish temple. Based on Acts 21:31-40, we know the fort was above the temple, because the soldiers had to go down to the temple to rescue Paul from the mob. Later, Paul spoke to the crowd below from the steps.
Josephus described the tremendous size of the fort as "it might seem to be composed of several cities". It also blocked the sight of the temple on the north side. Therefore, Avi Yonah's modern model cannot be correct.
What building in the modern city of Jerusalem is built upon a gigantic rock, and is named for that rock?
Answer this question and you will understand the location of the Roman fort.
"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."
In "Wars of the Jews", Book 6, Chapter 4, section 5, Josephus revealed that the Romans used Fort Antonia as a based to attack the temple on the day the temple was destroyed.
Where are the remains of the fort today?
"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."
Watch the RUclips video... The "Temple Mount" is Roman Fort Antonia, by Leeland Jones, if you want to see the truth.
.
Derek, God Himself has proved you right concerning the location of the first and second Temples. In describing the plans for the third Temple God tells Ezekiel where it must be built. Ezekiel 43:10-12 - '10 “As for you, son of man, [b]describe the temple to the house of Israel, so that they will be ashamed of their sins; and let them measure its plan [in detail]. 11 If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple (house), its layout, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it down in their sight, so that they may keep its whole design and all its statutes and do them. 12 This is the law of the temple: Its entire [c]area all around on the top of the mountain [d](Mount Moriah) shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the temple.' (The Amplified Bible). Verse 12 clearly shows the location of all the Temples. It is clearly The Temple Mount - "The top of the mountain." God's own word has shown it's location. It cannot be argued against.
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
@@SpotterVideo There's a reason it's known as the Dome of The Rock. Abraham and Issac would tell you if they could.
So, if it's not under the Dome of the Rock, and it's not in the City of David, then the threshing floor must have been on that middle platform just above David's city, which is still near the Gihon spring. Unless you can prove another theory... No one would put a threshing floor on the uneven rocky peak of a mountain. It needs a large flat area, within reach of water to give the animals that were working there. And after the Temple was built, it would be close so the priests can walk back without fear of contamination - a tunnel would do nicely.
The location of the Antonine Fort, or even Herod's Temple, is irrelevant because we are looking for the Temple that was there before. And just because there are some big stones still standing, they were foundations for a large part of the city, not necessarily exclusive to the Temple, which is entirely missing without any trace. If it was originally where the Dome now is, it was a strange place for a threshing floor.
And Herod's Temple was not fully approved for how he built it, despite its beauty, and not just because he was an Idumaean, so maybe he put it in the wrong place. Where was the Hasmonean Temple, or the one before? There is now no trace, not one stone left atop another. And lacking any real proof, the new Temple can be put wherever a consensus opinion can be reached.
Would the priests have went along with it if Herod built it in the wrong place? The Zarrababell temple was still standing at the time of Herod and we know the elders of Nehemiah's day could remember where the location of Solomon's temple stood. They should have! Solomon's temple stood for at least THREE CENTURIES! So that is why the thinking is if we can locate where Herod's temple stood the original site of Solomon's temple would be known. Also there is no indication that Jesus disputed the location of Herod's temple.
Where did you get this threshing floor idea from man? You’re so funny! 🤣🤣😂
@@calvinjackson8110 Temple stands under the dome of the rock.
@@phoenix9114 threshing floor came directly from scripture. You can look it up. It is not something someone invented.
@@calvinjackson8110 Ru comedy me? Everybody knows that mate!
Do you even know what a mount means? when you say temple mount? what comes first to your idea? You cannot simply construct something without making it's foundation stiff and firm that too on a high mountain which is 2400ft?
If mount moriah (GOD's holy mountain) the irregular surfaced mountain is mounted with a rectangular mount (as bible says 500cubits mount) to install the temple on it and you think you can find the threshing floor on the mountain which had gone through alot of constructions, reconstructions and expansions and buildings in all these 3000 years?
You still think you can find the threshing floor? USE YOUR BRAIN BRO!
The title suggests something academically sound, but I was disappointed. Statements like "the Jews must know where the temple is" is not academic, and hard to support when Josephus writes that post-destruction one would never know the temple stood where it did followed by large periods of time where Jews were expelled from Jerusalem. The Romans completely rebuilt the temple mount area and we have no idea of what they did. I've seen evidence that the pattern of al aqsa and the dome follows a Roman temple footprint, not the Jewish temple footprint. Saying "it's called the temple mount, so the temple be on the top of a mount" is really terrible logic. It's also written that the temple could not be seen from the north, so it couldn't have been where the dome is, very visible from the north. I don't believe Martin's view is correct, but the key issues with the dome location for the holy of holies aren't addressed here. The only theory that seems to fit all objections is theory that places the temple on the southern half of today's mount area, with Antonia on the northern half of the mount area. I'd love to see critiques of that.
I believe it is a valid point to suggest the Jews would not forget where their holiest place was, especially considering their special gift of maintaining and handing down their traditions over thousands of years, and the extensive written records on the temple written in the 2nd - 4th centuries. The fact they are sure that they know where their Temple was should be respected and has been confirmed by Leen Ritmeyer (The Quest). It also makes sense that the Temple holy of holies would be at the local peak of moriah rather than half way up the slope (where the Angel stood between heaven and earth in the originating story). The Temple Mount is in fact trapezoid, quite unlike the standard Roman rectangular design. Your understanding that the Temple could not be seen from the north does not come from Josephus but from Cornuke's (or Martin's) mishandling of Josephus. The actual quote is Wars 5.246: “The hill Bezetha was, as I said, cut off from Antonia; the highest of all the hills, it was encroached on by part of the new town and formed on the north the only obstruction to the view of the Temple.” Bezetha = Skull Hill (Golgotha) which is higher ground to the north of Temple Mount. As you can see, the actual quote provides no problem to the classic view - in fact it is an accurate statement perfectly consistent with the classic view.
the Gihon spring is the marker we must NOT ignore
The Gihon's water has been made bitter after an earthquake. It is unsuitable for temple use and the temple was never there. There is in fact 4 or 5 cisterns of water on the temple mount and that water is always there even during dry periods. They are covered with stones at the moment. The Arabs at one point were trying to drain them because they thought the water would affect the Dome of the rock and, as fast as they were trying to do that, the water kept coming. As we know, they won't let anyone excavate there or anything else so, no one knows at present where that water is coming from. Jewish records state that the water came from the pools of Solomon at Etan near Bethlehem via an aqueduct. The Gihon spring was the water supply for the people in the old city NOT the temple. Hezekiah also later on, had the spring water diverted further south to the pool of Siloam making it of no use to the then temple anyway.
the people that live over there seem to know otherwise about the Gihon's spring water being unusable
surgeneral108 This guy's got a pedigree and reputation to protect - No Gihon spring or scriptures saying God's temple.was in the city of David - Mt. Zion I had someone tell me that The City of David wasnt in Jerusalem.
a pedigree and reputation to protect? ... what does that have to do with biblical facts?
The temple is in the city of David not the mount
Nicely done. God was and is pleased
with His work , His creation, His people ( the Jewish people) of whom
He guided and it was He they called the one and only God. God gave specific instructions to be followed.
God never gives up on His creation
offering a rainbow of promise to never
flood the earth again. I am grateful
that He had me in mind in His creation
and knew my name and all my days before I was born. If He is the same yesterday , today and forever surely the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem is special in His eye.
Derek Walker is spot on. Bob Cornuke needs to watch this. I'll post him a link.
If there isn't one stone of the Temple left on top of another, where are the stones ?
you can see a pile of them preserved near the south west corner of Temple Mount (near robinson's arch). They were thrown down from above and cracked the first century pavement - also visible.
@@DerekWalkerOBC
How do you know they are from the Temple and not an ordinary wall from Roman occupation or stones cleared to build the Dome of the Rock ?
The list of possibilities is enormous..
I don't have an oar in this discussion because Christians do not need the new temple to be built and we can trust when God says the citadel will be in its proper place. I am open-minded; however, I to not believe Haram is the temple mount based on various pieces of evidence. I've realized the main proof text that traditionalists cite is not in conflict with a city of David location. 1 Kings 8 is said to claim the ark was brought up out of the City of David directly to the temple. When you read the whole chapter, it becomes clear that the tabernacle/ark were removed to where Sukkot was celebrated for 7 days. The whole point of Sukkot is to live in booths/tents and they essentially encamped around the tabernacle/ark just as they had in the wilderness. Then the ark was brought back and and placed in the holy of holies, and the temple dedication was another 7 days. The proof claiming the temple must have been out and up from the City of David is not supported. The Dome of the Rock was built over the church of the holy wisdom, which commemorated a place tied to Jesus, not the Jewish temple. The inscriptions in the Dome also make it clear that the site was connected to Jesus because they state God begot no one and thus deny his sonship. The spring tower was filled over (why it was found underground), which supports that a larger fill-in project once took place. The foundation that is said to be David's palace is Eilat Mazar's interpretation - it has not been proven.
I can immediately see 2 contradictions in your inventive reconstruction: (1) it contradicts the parallel account in 2Chronicles 5-7, which makes it clear the dedication took place before the feast of tabernacles, so that the people were dismissed at the end of the festivities on the day after the 8th day of the feast of tabernacles, that is the 23rd (tabernacles starts on the 15th) - see 2Chronicles 7:10. Indeed it makes much more sense that they would dedicate the temple before the feast of tabernacles rather than after it, for that way the new temple would be at the heart of the feast, and the required sacrifices for tabernacles could be offered, now that the temple and its altar had been dedicated to God. (2) By making 1Kings 8:1,4 two journeys (one being the return journey of the other) rather than the same journey, you get a clear contradiction because in each case they GO UP - the Hebrew verb in both cases is to ASCEND. So first the ark is taken from the city of david in an uphill direction and then it is returned to the city of david by means of another uphill journey. This is only possible in an Escher picture!
@@DerekWalkerOBC I;m enjoying your videos - particularly the Ezekiel 38 material. I just have to disagree with you on this point. Both passages are consistent in the timeline: officials gathered in Israel for the feast, the tabernacle and ark were moved, then there were sacrifices, then priests placed the ark in the holy place. In 1 Kings 8 there is more detail. We know that the altar was dedicated after the ark was placed in the holy place. The Shekinah arrived after the ark was placed and Solomon prayed for the people in his dedication. We know the first set of sacrifices were so many they were uncountable, but the second set was given a specific number. We know that the whole time was 14 days. I'm untroubled by the "up" and "up" - it suggests to me Sukkot was celebrated on a hill, perhaps where Jesus would eventually be crucified. If the temple was such a tall edifice with such a dizzying height as described by Josephus, it too would be the direction of up to place the ark in the holy place. You can believe what you want, but I'm relieved to have this one conflict satisfied in my mind. It doesn't prove the City of David location, but it does not conflict with either.
Mosque-----Al Aqsa, Al Aqsa, Al Aqsa!!! NOT "alaska" !!!
Moose A'la Mode..... Alaska
when the true sacrifice of the ceremonial law was made (the crucifixion of Jesus Christ), Lord God tore away the veil in the temple. No more sacrifices, no more phisical temples... just one, spiritual.
if the Gihon spring does not flow from the area, its not the temple mount. Id ask you what did jesus say about the jews? Who did he say was their father?
The gazebo thing is where the Holy of Holies was LOCATED.
I was an elevator to hide the the ark
I has been found.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on all this. Unsure about the interpretation though. Current ' location of temple' wouldn't be ideal as a threshing floor would it? Your efforts are appreciated though.
Have you seen the video by Dr. Christian Widener on the subject of the location of the Temple? He says that there is another area of exposed bedrock on the Temple Mount that better resembles a threshing floor, under the Dome of the spirits.
@@jimratter5561 ok I will have a look at that, thanks 👍
@@kalkhan816 a threshing floor needs to be flat and reasonably smooth as you know. The rock inside the "Dome of the Rock" is anything but.
@@jimratter5561 yes that is what I thought too... did you see the documentary on the third temple, it's online, the architect there says that place can't be the place but further down the hill it might be there... Eli shukran I think he's called...
@@kalkhan816 no, I haven't seen that one but will try to find it. There is a lot at stake in this controversy! I think you would enjoy Dr Christian Widener's RUclips video on the subject. He also mentions the alignment of the Eastern gate with the Holy if Holys that can be historically verified.
Walkers arguments have overwhelmed Cornuke's claims . I am stunned. Something new ,does not always mean something true. .
Cornuke may just be right. Hard to overcome the evidence contained in the link I include here.
l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FadtNyATL4Tw%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1rOeBAdyiM6NKVYLJjdyT302A9M7t1Hg9nC41qXx5pF1dxfoWzRClC0EI&h=AT2CQ_Yyiu2PMKTc8I5VkMrnKraqiQIkWb9u3QkS6eK6zTNvAKWy41V4-HYF-reivzc2mwhUjzGzPXxEMqle-Nx5q9Cb8E9cWs7sDaxgeuYqHNpVJDBNSkfmdLV8uzPgq2mMyfu629r1fYWVvHNyyRdP
Based on the New Testament and the writings of Josephus, the area now known as "The Temple Mount" is the remains of Roman Fort Antonia.
Fort Antonia (Herod’s Praetorium, Acts 23:35) was built by Herod and given to the Romans. It was used to house the thousands of Roman soldiers needed to police the ancient city of Jerusalem.
In Acts 23:23 the Romans sent 470 soldiers to escort one man. Are we to believe all of the soldiers from the fort were sent with this one man?
During 73 AD the Jewish leader at Masada said the only thing left of Jerusalem was that which belonged to the Romans.
Mar 15:16 Then the soldiers led Him away into the hall called Praetorium, and they called together the whole garrison.
Act_23:35 he said, "I will hear you when your accusers also have come." And he commanded him to be kept in Herod's Praetorium.
Based on Acts 21:31-40, we know the Roman fort was above the temple because the soldiers had to go “down” to rescue Paul from the mob at the temple. Paul later spoke to the crowd below from the steps.
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.”
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.
In the passage below we find the Romans used Fort Antonia as the base to attack the temple during 70 AD. They had previously gained access to the fort by attacking the foundation for seven days. (Book 6, Chapter 2, Section 7) The passage proves at least part of Fort Antonia remained intact on the day the Jewish temple was destroyed.
From War of the Jews, by Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 4, sections 4-5.
"4. Now it is true that on this day the Jews were so weary, and under such consternation, that they refrained from any attacks. But on the next day they gathered their whole force together, and ran upon those that guarded the outward court of the temple very boldly, through the east gate, and this about the second hour of the day. These guards received that their attack with great bravery, and by covering themselves with their shields before, as if it were with a wall, they drew their squadron close together; yet was it evident that they could not abide there very long, but would be overborne by the multitude of those that sallied out upon them, and by the heat of their passion. However, Caesar seeing, from the tower of Antonia, that this squadron was likely to give way, he sent some chosen horsemen to support them. Hereupon the Jews found themselves not able to sustain their onset, and upon the slaughter of those in the forefront, many of the rest were put to flight. But as the Romans were going off, the Jews turned upon them, and fought them; and as those Romans came back upon them, they retreated again, until about the fifth hour of the day they were overborne, and shut themselves up in the inner [court of the] temple.
5. So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them; for upon Titus’s retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning the inner [court of the] temple; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it."
All of this provides tremendous evidence that the Dome of the Rock is the true location of Fort Antonia. If at least part of Fort Antonia remained on the day the temple was destroyed, where is that part of Fort Antonia now?
Watch the RUclips video… The “Temple Mount” is Roman Fort Antonia, by Leeland Jones, to see the truth with your own eyes.
.
The biggest power on Earth has just been moved to recognise Jerusalem as capital of Israel, how long before they are moved to say that Israel should have their Temple rebuilt? Is their anything in prophecy, Derek, that relates to this specific event today.
not specifically, but it is interesting it is 50 years from 1967 and 100 years from 1917 - it will probably move things forward toward the fulfilment of Ezek 38.
It's definitely been an interesting day. I saw the Turkish president and the Jordanian King complaining about it, and Putin has just announced he is standing for another term, which of course he will win. I think your 'mountains of Israel' has just moved a notch closer. It reminds me of the scripture 'The Kings heart is in the Hand of The Lord, and like a river He guides it where He wants.' Exciting times. I think now that it's getting closer we're starting to see The Holy Spirit ushering things along.
1-25-18, having watch the videos of Bob Cornuke, and 2 of your videos I am able now to begin to think that Cornuke is wrong in his conclusion of temple location. I will continue to compare this information between the two views. I see your points in creating an argument/trouble if Christians push this location Cornuke is pushing. Thank you.
All in God's time..He is in control.🙏
I beg to differ with you sir when you reason that because the Jews always visited Jerusalem they couldn't possibly forget where the temple was located. In 70 AD Hadrian destroyed the city and until 638 AD the city was not called 'Jerusalem' but it was called Aelia Capitolina. For several consecutive generations Jews were forbidden to enter the city and since the site of the temple was destroyed it is not only possible but even likely that the true site of the original temple was lost. The Antonia fortress was located north of the temple as Josephus says and it even blocked the view of the temple from the north side it is only logical that the 'temple' mount was the location of the 10,000 personnel fort.
i think it highly unlikely that the Jews would forget the location of their most holy site. there has always been a jewish presence in the land and of all nations they preserved excellent written records. we have detailed jewish writings from the 2nd and 3rd centuries describing the temple in all its details. The classic temple mount agrees perfectly with Josephus - the site of the Antonia is indeed north of the Temple area and was on a rock scarp on higher ground. The idea that it held 10,000 is pure myth made up by Martin/Cornuke. Nowhere does Josephus say that - he uses the word Tagma = troop (unspecified number). The Bible speaks of a cohort (600) stationed there. Martin fails to mention that Josephus ised practically the same description for Herodium as for the Antonia - no way was there a legion at Herodium. History tells us that no legion was stationed in Israel in the time of Herod the Great (the local legions were based in Syria). A legion was only based in Jerusalem from AD 70.
The Holy of Hollie's was at the highest point of Mount Moriah, where the temple mount exists today! There was a square where the Ark of the Covenant sat. Also please note that the Jews were scattered to other places and not allowed to return until recently.
I think this is interesting but, I doubt there will be another temple ever again
Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be completely destroyed as we read at Mathew 24 verse 1 and 2 "Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”
God allowed the temple to be destroyed because of the rebelliousness of the jews. Worship directed to God at the temple was no longer acceptable to God. The marvelously built temple was done away with by God's permission.
Is this Angel who stands on the highest point of the mount Moriah the same Angel which the flaming sword who stands on gate of the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve has to leave the Garden of Eden?
If this is true an they are so sure ! Why did they give it up so ezeley after they had won the war ?????
So I see what he is saying is in direct contradiction to Bob Cornuke teaching about where is the real location of the temple.
this guy uses circular thought for his arguments.he goes i circles.he never proves his theory regardless how popular his theory is.basically the temple mount is believed to be where the temple stood because of tradition.
This is fact. You’re comment that is!
.....and you bring no facts
Abraham was told by God to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac at mount Moriah refers to Golgotha the highest peak of mount Moriah ie 777 m asl, where son of God Jesus Christ our Lord was crucified. The 2nd temple of Solomon was thrown down and there was not left one stone upon another by the Roman in 70 AD. The only structure left stand still was the Roman's fortress . The temple mount was the Roman's fortress, when in 145 AD Hadrian built a worship spot of Jupiter stature exactly at where the dome of the Rock stand today. in 340 AD when Constantine treated Christianity as the formal religion he changed the place where Jupiter stature stand to a church building. And when the Islamic troop of Ottoman Turkey invaded and conquered Jerusalem, they destroyed the cross and replaced with a mosque which is dome of the rock today. Our God and Lord will never let His holy place to be taken, so He let the original Holy of holiest spot to be kept and will be re revealed in the right time before His 2nd coming, hallelujah.
i agree that is where Abraham offered Isaac and Christ was crucified - the 2nd Temple has to also be on Mount Moriah (2Chron 3:1) - this means it must be on the classic Temple Mount and it excludes the city of David. The temple building were destroyed as Jesus predicted but the retaining walls for the mount itself were not destroyed. Josephus tells us that the Roman camp which remained was near the jaffa gate where the 3 towers were left standing and a section of the western wall - not where the classic TM is. Josephus also tells us that the Romans destroyed the Antonia to its foundations, so to say that it was the only thing standing contradicts Josephus. Also it is simply not true biblically that God never lets his holy Temples get defiled or destroyed - hence the Abomination of Desolation.
The dome of the rock is not a mosque. It's a monument or shrine to where muslims claim Mohammed stepped from the rock onto his horse and rose to heaven. Mohammed never visited any mosque in Jerusalem as they claim because there was no mosque in his time there.. The actual mosque is further away and has a small silver coloured dome. It was not the 2nd temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. but the temple that Herod built which was an extension of the 2nd temple ( not Solomon's) . The Romans also pretty much raise the antonia to the ground as well and it never occupied what we know as the temple mount area. Constantine's Christianity is questionable as well because he still followed many pagan practices along with his mother. The Lord did indeed let His holy place be captured and destroyed as was evident by the destruction of all 3 temples to date.
lonardy andreas Yes brother that makes sense!
well done lonardy, but some folks can't or won't receive those facts you stated !
lonardy andreas Agree. This just feels right in my spirit.
I DISAGREE: to the point that Christians who claim that THAT location is actually fort Antonia “ plays” into the hands of the enemy (Islam), actually doesn’t.... because of this, IF it is true that that is NOT the true location of the Temple, then the same logic that applies to Jews also applies to Muslims... it means that’s not the actual place that Mohammed a ascended up on his “steed”.... so they as well have NO claim to that location either..... WHY? Because that’s NOT the true LOCATION to be laying claim TO.... so NO it doesn’t infer or “ mean” that Jews have no claim to the Temple, it just means the location to witch they are claiming is inaccurate ..... plus, if it IS the wrong location, why would you want to continue following and believing something that is a lie( not saying it is or isn’t in my personal opinion) I just want to bring up my disagreement on the argument that to claim such things, plays into the hands of the Muslims is inaccurate.
Did he say the “Alaska” mosque ?
It’s under the dome.
Your points are excelant, however your visual is very sadly lacking. Trying to figure out from a flat photo as to where these locations are is impossible. Too much and too many to keep track of. You need to either place a picture over the other to show where these places changed to or where placed in actuallity. Sorry but I need a better visiual. Maybe I am alone in this.
ella Shell absolutely agree
By 14:30 He has made 4 comments without any evidence of such. “Muslims put the Mosque on the Temple Mount in defiance “ . Says who? Josephus, a historian who was alive during the destruction of the 2nd temple, they claim he was mistaken when he says that the fort (Antonia) and the Temple were 600 feet apart. They ignore that Paul went DOWN to the city via the steps from the fort meaning the fort held the higher ground. Those that argue against assertions in this video bring proof. A Pilgrim that was at The Holy Septcru looked east and said ALLthey could see was the fort. Not a temple ? Evidence.
Derek, what is your opinion about Ron Wyatt?
I think you are adding to scripture. It is Mt Zion NOT Mt Moriah. read the scriptures again. Where would the Roman Legions be housed? Not in the small corner Antonia. It would hold about 600 Not 6,000+. This requires the Temple Mount. A location where they would be to themselves in a city of their own. You are making the claims more valid and reasonable and believable of Martin/Cornuke. Also the Gihon spring was a gusher like "The Ole Faithful" In the USA. But, as for the Moslems claim to The Temple Mount they have NO claim to any land of Israel. All of Israel was given by God to HIs people.
The problem is that you assume everything Cornuke/Martin says is true. You should take scripture as your starting point and then learn from the real experts (archaeologists and historians) about the rest. For example 2Chronicles 3:1 plainly says it was on Mount Moriah (Cornuke cuts out this reference to Moriah whenever he quotes this verse. The Temple Mount also came to be called Mount Zion, to distinguish it from the city of david (the original zion).
Again the idea that the Antonia was built to hold a legion is a pure invention by Martin. Historical records say the 4 legions were based in Syria (the romans never based legions in the territory of client kings like herod the great) - the 10th legion was only established in Jerusalem from Ad 70 onwards. The word Josephus uses is not the word for legion but 'tagma' which can be any size of troop (see its use in 1Cor 15:23 - 'each in his own order (troop= 'tagma'). The Bible speaks of a cohort (500-600) based at the Antonia - so i prefer to go with that. Josephus uses exactly the same 'self-sufficient city' description for Herodium - a fact Martin fails to mention.
Even if the Gihon was originally a thousand times stronger (for which there is no evidence) there is no evidence of a channel that would take it to where the Temple would be (the vertical warrens's shaft only goes part way), and in any case when Hezekiah built his tunnel to divert the gihon waters south to the pool of siloam, the siphon pressure system required to deliver the water to the Temple would no longer be able to work. Also the jewish records from the 2nd century tell us the water for the temple was delivered from Etam near bethlehem by an aqueduct, and this aqueduct has been discovered and it goes to the Temple Mount and it was built before the time of Herod the Great. So all that is going for the Cornuke/Martin theory is an impressive work of the imagination.
I do agree with you on the the last point - but the Temple Mount is the special point of contention, and this theory - if it took hold - would weaken the Jewish position, and their claim that the temple mount is theirs - it misleads christians, causing them to come into agreement with the radical muslims who are trying to rewrite history and say that the jews have no special connection with the temple mount.
Current estimates are 100,000 jews living in jerusalem in AD 33 (today's jerusalem is almost a million and it is vastly bigger than 1st century jerusalem) - the city of david itself could only hold a few thousand at most. Obviously there were more people at the feasts which is why there were reinforcements sent from Caesarea at that time - probably another cohort which would be stationed at Herod's Palace and in the grounds adjacent to the antonia. When the antonia was build by Herod the Great he had his own forces to govern israel - not roman legions because he was a client king of rome.
You also refer to another theory originated by Martin that Jesus was crucified on the Mount of Olives, which contradicts his Temple theory, as the City of David is opposite the Silwan hill not the mount of olives. The basis for it is that the roman soldier saw the veil rip in half, but the bible never specifically says that, which is why few people bought into that theory. However you are quite wrong to say that the Mount of Olives is too low for such a viewing - Martin was correct in pointing out that from the top of the Mount of Olives you would have a good view to the Temple below over the top of any walls. However the top of Olives is an unlikely place for romans to do crucifixions. Cornuke has now tried to make Martin's 2 theories consistent by saying Golgotha was on the Silwan hill opposite the city of david, which is much lower than the city of david, so whatever issue you have with the view from olives, it would be a more problematic issue from silwan. Also Silwan hill is a most unlikely place for roman crucifixions.
The Jews don't believe Christ is the Son of God so please leave Christ out of the picture concerning "The Temple"...
Hebrews 9 verse 24 reads"For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, so that he now appears before God on our behalf"
The above scripture shows that Jesus as high priest offered to God the value of his perfect sacrifice before God himself in heaven. This is the reality the temple was pointing to; a better priesthood and a better sacrifice. Are you proposing a return to the elementary things of the past when the reality has arrived?
Assuming you rebuild the physical temple that once stood in Jerusalem what sacrifice would you offer there? Is there any need for animal sacrifices? You know the answer is an emphatic No!
Great presentation---totally scriptural.
I might be wrong but is there not a verse that says 'Peace, peace, but there will be no peace'? I noticed Trump kept using the word peace. Maybe that verse relates to this.
No. I'm way out of context there.
In light of all the evidence, the temple absolutely must have been on, and absolutely could not have been on, the "temple mount."
Every thought that is not based on scripture will fail. Scripture says that it was built on Mount Moriah. Did you hear that loud and clear?
2 Chronicles 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
Seems to me all we do is find the location of mount Moriah and we will know where the temple of Solomon was located, AND we need to know where was mount Moriah in SOLOMON'S time.
Thank you, brother. You have helped my thinking on the subject greatly. "Almost [they] persuadest me." The other view does not need accommodation, almost appearing rational.
Jesus directed attention to the things that truly mattered most. Read his words directed at woman who pronounced a blessing directed at what she thought was of high value but received correction from our teacher at Luke chapter 11 verse 27 and 28 "Now as he was saying these things, a woman from the crowd called out to him: “Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that nursed you!” 28 But he said: “No, rather, happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!"
Of what use is a Temple amidst godlessness, hate and violence? The very things that led to rejection of the jewish nation by God and his allowing the previous temple to be done away with ?
Obedience is better than sacrifice.
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/did-i-find-king-davids-palace/ At the end of this article, Mazar states she found a broad flat area that is not associated with any ruins and it exists independently. I ask, is it possible she found the threshing floor? She even speculates the walls she found could have been for a new temple, but then dismisses the idea because it's not Mt. Moriah (though we know Jerusalem is a slope of Moriah).
Your reading things into Scripture
In the city of David
Is Our Heavenly Father Humble?
Is His Son Our Lord Humble?
Did Jesus go right to the top of mount Herman for His Transfiguration?
Did the pagans go right to the top of The high places!
Jesus Christ was Crucified outside The City
Did Jesus Prophesy truth!
Not 1 stone will be left on top of another
This Generation 40 years
70 ad fulfilled, The old Covenant dissolved.
The New Creation Through The New Covenant cut in His Own Blood 🩸
If another temple is built in modern Jerusalem Q.
Who will sit in it ⁉️
God says A Strong Delusion will come!
God is Spirit
God is Love
Adam Sinned (All people in his loins)
Jesus Christ was hung back on The Tree ✝️
1 Sin, 1 Remedy!
Jesus wants All to be Saved 🕊
The old Covenant is shadows
Jesus Christ is The Substance
We are His Temple filled with The Holy Spirit living waters!
The Rock IS IN THE WRONG SPOT .
Most likely the temple was not on the temple mount. It doesn't meet biblical description. Remember God hates high places of worship.
no temple, but beit el , the word of emple is wrong translation, did you want to looking for holy stones inside dome of rock
You mean there cannot be any construction of any other religion....because there was none when there was Temple ?? Simple.
It's NOT El "Aska." Wrong pronunciation.
2024 he reversed this opinion... same title with same channel name. See for yourself and pray for the TRUTH.
you cant fit 10,000 people in the Traditional site of Ft. Antonia....bad math.--Ft. Antonia is where the Dome of the rock sits.
your assumption is false - nowhere does the bible or josephus say there was a legion stationed in Antonia - that is a myth made up by the promoters of their theory. Josephus refers to a tagma = troop of unspecified size. The Bible refers to a troop = 600. Roman history tells us that a legion was only based in Jerusalem after Ad 70 (before that there were 2 legions in Syria). Because Herod the Great was a client king of rome - he would not have legions based in his land, and he built the antonia.
@@DerekWalkerOBC
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:
Psalm 76:2 Mt Zion Not Moriah.
ALL of the city that Solomon extended including the temple was known as Zion or Mt. Zion. The name of Mt. Moriah ceased to be used after the temple was built. There never was an actual mountain called Zion. It was the name synonymously used with the name Jerusalem for the city.
2Chronicles 3:1 - Mt Moriah, which was later known as Mount Zion, to distinguish it from the city of david (which is not a mount)
City of David that where it is.
Why did God allow an enemy to destroy his temple? With effect from Pentecost 33ce when holy spirit was poured out on Gods true worshippers why was it not necessary to have a physical temple and earthly priesthood?
Jesus made it clear (in Matthew 23-24) that the Temple was destroyed because that generation of national Israel rejected Him as Messiah (Daniel 9:26), but that does not exclude future Temples of God in Israel, which are prophesied (Daniel 9:27, 2Thess 2, Rev 11, Matt 24:15-16, Ezek 40-48)
@@DerekWalkerOBCThe temple at Jerusalem, levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices pictured the coming of the messiah who would offer one time perfect sacrifice to atone for all sin thereby removing the need for offering animal sacrifices in the future. What purpose would a physical temple at Jerusalem serve under the new dispensation?
@@anthonyk9692 In the Tribulation it will be used by God for a final outreach to Israel by the 2 witnesses who will preach the gospel there - revelation 11 - the temple will remind israel that only by blood is there forgiveness.
@@DerekWalkerOBC Please bear in mind that "Israel" was rejected by God owing to her unfaithfulness and rejection of his son and he is no longer dealing with that Nation in a special relationship. See Jesus words rejecting Israel at Mathew 23 verse Jesus indicated at John 4 verse 24 verse 37 and 38 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her-how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you"
Faithful individual Jews who accepted Jesus and became christians received Gods approval but God was dealing with them as individuals not collectively as a Nation.
Further Jesus said to he ( samaritan woman at John chapter 4 verse 21 “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father"
True worship is no longer centered in Jerusalem".
The persons who survive the tribulation are shown as coming out of all nations and tribes and languages of the earth as we read at Revelation 7 verse 9 reads "After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb"
@@DerekWalkerOBC The temple that we should focus our attention on is the original...the reality itself of God great spiritual temple in the heavens where Jesus offered the value of his ransom sacrifice to God. No earthly temple can possibly receive attention now when the reality has arrived
I'm guessing that the city of David is where the real temple stood?
too many significant occurrences happened there?
No - the bible specifically says the opposite (1Kings 8) - the Ark was taken out from the City of David UP to its place in the Temple to the higher elevation in the north (Ps 48)
bless you, Sir for the wisdom!
@@DerekWalkerOBC this is not where the wailing wall is located? so is it located at Moriha?
@@DerekWalkerOBC, I'm learning so much from these studies and because of such I can give an account based on facts
the wailing wall is part of the western wall of the retaining wall of the temple mount and on the edge of Mount Moriah - the dome of the rock is at the top of mount moriah and is where the holy of holies was.
I have been inside the Dome on the Rock. There are signs inside telling you not to touch the rock, but I did anyway. You can feel the souls of all the people who have been sacrificed on that rock. It is the perfect place to carry out human sacrifice. The rock is about three and one half or four feet above the land around it. It is obvious that the priest or medicine man and the sacrificial person could stand on the rock, while all the worshipers stood around, in about a 50 foot radius. The priest would whip up the audience to a height of spiritual fervor, sacrifice the willing person, the lamb, and everybody would go away refreshed.
The dome of the Rock is where the Ark of the Covenant sat! There is a square channel for the Ark of the Covenant to sit in. If you watch this video, the sacrificial alter was very close east of the dome of the rock (very close by).
Tel Arad where the real Jerusalem is. As drawn in a map by John the Baptist
The following proves that the area now known as "The Temple Mount" is the remains of Fort Antonia (Herod's Praetorium, Acts 23:35), based on the writings of Josephus.
The following comes from "Wars of the Jews", by Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section 8. Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, on the highest hill, and had passages which went "down" to the Jewish temple.
Based on Acts 21:31-40, we know the fort was above the temple, because the soldiers had to go down to the temple to rescue Paul from the mob. Later, Paul spoke to the crowd below from the steps.
Josephus described the tremendous size of the fort as "it might seem to be composed of several cities". It also blocked the sight of the temple on the north side.
Therefore, Avi Yonah's modern model cannot be correct.
What building in the modern city of Jerusalem is built upon a gigantic rock, and is named for that rock?
Answer this question and you will understand the location of the Roman fort.
"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."
In "Wars of the Jews", Book 6, Chapter 4, section 5, Josephus revealed that the Romans used Fort Antonia as a based to attack the temple on the day the temple was destroyed.
Where are the remains of the fort today?
"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."
Watch the RUclips video... The "Temple Mount" is Roman Fort Antonia, by Leeland Jones, if you want to see the truth.
.
It is going to be a rude awakening for the "chosen" people when their Messiah doesn't come because they built the temple in the wrong place.
Nobody is building anything.
All these guys are a bad joke. Every one of them.
@ That's not what the Bible says... there will be a third temple and it will be directly on the location of where the other temple's once existed. God knew everything before anything ever existed also!
Where was the Roman fortress located
on the high ground at the north-western corner of the temple mount - just where Josephus said - there is a rock scarp there.
The so called temple mount was the location of the Roman Fortress Fort Antonia which housed 6000 soldiers and 4000 support personnel according to Bob Cornuke's theory. The real temple was located in the City of David.
Why would Christ set up His throne in a desecrated temple? Is there anywhere I could get these diagrams?
Watch Joseph Good - Temple of Israel. There are 4 videos in the series, and he shows diagrams. Parts 3 and 4 address these other theories, but you have to have the foundational understandings of kadusha (sanctity) and patterns to get the full impact of the rest of the study. BTW he is good friends with and highly respected by Rabbi Richman and others at the Temple Institute.
There are many ancient holy places that have been desecrated over the centuries, but that doesn't mean God can't cleanse them. After all, He is the God of Redemption!
the 3rd Temple that gets desecrated in the Tribulation will be destroyed at the 2nd Coming, then Christ will set up and reign from the 4th Temple in the Millennium (Ezekiel 40-48)
Thank you Pastor Walker for your presentation. It sheds great light on an age old argument. Many people believe that the temples stood on the original Mt. Zion which I don't agree with. In your diagram, there isn't a Mt.Zion there where I would have assumed it to be re next to or near David's palace area. Was it actually a mountain or more like a hill? Why has Solomon's palace never been found? I also watched a video that agrees with what you say however, that man believed that where the ark of the covenant stood was not the area under the dome of the rock but where that other little dome that stands on the columns is. Sorry, I can't remember what he called it . He claims that there is a cover stone there and the block where the ark stood is underneath it. That would place the temple of Solomon and the next temple a little further from where Herod's temple stood but still on the mount itself. He also showed photos of 4 cisterns on the mount covered with stone that are full of water even during dry times. The muslims tried to drain them because they thought it might affect the dome but, as fast as they were trying to do so, the water just kept filling back up. Of course with them having control, there has been no excavation to find out where the water is coming from. He suggested that at one time, there was an aqueduct that came from the pools of Solomon to feed the needs of the temple (not to be confused with the aqueduct that Pilot built ). Oddly enough, I did see those pictures on the mount some years ago showing the muslims trying to drain the cisterns. Also, with the fortress of Antonia, would it have possibly taken up the length of the northern wall, I mean ran the length of it? If the 10th legion was permanently in Jerusalem, they wouldn't have been living in tents surely. There would have been up to ten thousand soldiers, servants, aids etc. Could you possibly shed some light on that? It would be all so easy if people actually referred to God's word in the first place with these things.
Thanks - the original Zion = City of David. When the Temple was built on the Mount (Hill) above the city that Mount (Mt.Moriah) was then called Mount Zion (the Mount belonging to Zion) because now Zion (Jerusalem) was now expanded to include this Mount. The name Mount Zion replaced Mount Moriah which is why Moriah is no longer mentioned after 2Chronicles 3:1. This also explains why we only hear about a Mt Zion after the Temple was built. The asumption Mount Zion = City of David is therefore false. The City of David is built on a ridge at the base of Mount Zion (=Temple Mount). The Cornuke/Martin theory has the Temple near the David Palace area. Ken Klein, embarassed by the lack of a mount there, makes the absurd claim that there was originally a huge mount there that was cut down by the hasmonians (which is contradicted by the archaeology), but then this requires him to have the temple to the north of that area (so that it avoids this destruction), so his temple is not on mount zion (which contradicts the scriptures) - such confusion!
Solomon's Palace was destroyed by the Babylonians and any remains were covered over by the expansion of the Temple Mount to the South by the Hasmonians and King Herod. The dome you refer to the dome of the spirits - but there is no evidence for this theory. Yes, it is a fact that an aqueduct has been found taking water from the Pools of Solomon to the Temple Mount and the jewish records confirm this was the main water source for the temple. This aqueduct is known to be there from before the time of Herod and was no doubt originally built by Solomon and later repaired many times - the Hasmonian repairs have been verified. Later Pilate built another aqueduct. This is common knowledge but is ignored by those who claim the classic Temple Mount had no running water source.
The whole idea that the Antonia was built by Herod to contain a legion is a total myth that comes from Martin. I find the main problem in dealing with this new theory is that many proponents accept every assertion and individualistic interpretation of Josephus as gospel truth without checking it with the experts and other sources. Josephus uses the word Tagma in connection with the Antonia which can refer to any size troop - the Bible speaks of a cohort (500-600) stationed there, which fits the classic Antonia, with some troops possible having to camp in its grounds during feast times. Josephus uses practically the same flowery description of it being like a city for another palace of Herod - Herodium (which Martin conveniently forgets to mention) - and it that case he could not have meant it was like a city of 10,000. Herod was a client king and Romans never stationed legions with such kings - so he did not build the Antonia for a legion. Historical records tell us that the 4 local legions were based in Syria, not Israel. The legions only entered the land for the Jewish war (AD 66-73), and the 10th legion was only permanently stationed in Jerusalem from AD 70 onwards, and Josephus tells us that their camp was on the higher ground on the west side of the old city, NOT on the east where the Temple Mount is. (Josephus locates it near the 3 towers that guarded Herod's Palace, which the Romans kept standing as a reminder of the strength of the original fortifications). This is near today's Jaffa gate, either to its south, or to its north where the christian quarter is now.
Thank you so much! This really is interesting. I know that Martin and Cornuke are way off with what they say. I did have some confusion when it came to the Romans in Jerusalem though. I don't have access to historical records mainly because I don't know who to look up! I have just purchased the works of Josephus so, I can read for myself now. It's no wonder people are lead astray when they don't ask questions or find out for themselves. Thank goodness I'm the nosy type and need to find these things out.
very well debunked