Jesus personally said that there wouldn’t be one stone left standing upon another, so if you believe that the fortress Antonia was the Temple Mount, you are calling Jesus a liar, as well as Josephus. You are being lied to by the synagogue of satan that Jesus also told us about and Jesus also mentioned deception in the last days so you may want to hear Him. If you can’t believe Him in the small things then that explains why you can’t believe Him in the Greater things. Show me the cisterns under the Temple in Scripture? Robinson’s Arch is just the end of the causeway to the Temple. Eat lies if you want to but you’ve been told.
I understand why people want the Martin theory to be true. It seems impossible to replace the dome because of politics. However, nothing is impossible for G-d
He said there was No running water on the temple mount.... not that there was no water. The priests had to wash themselves in running water before they entered the holy of holies. The closest running water was 1/4 of a mile away at the Gihon spring
When Solomon's temple was erected, did he provide cisterns or water systems to support the worship? The water systems described in this video clearly came later.
What did the first century eyewitnesses say about the location of the ancient Jewish temple? In the writings of the Roman Historian Tacitus below he said a “spring of never-failing water” came out of the Jewish temple. The Bible makes references to "living water", which is flowing water. Why? Spring water is usually purer than water stored in cisterns. The Gihon Spring is a rare siphon spring which was capable to pumping water uphill several times a day. The word Gihon means "gusher". (The Jews Book Five (1-13) of The Histories by Tacitus ) 12. The Temple was like a citadel and had its own walls, which had been even more laboriously and skilfully constructed than the rest. The porticoes around it constituted in themselves an excellent defensive position. To these advantages must be added a spring of never-failing water, chambers cut in the living rock, and tanks and cisterns for the storage of rainwater. Its builders had foreseen only too well that the strange practices of the Jews would lead to continual fighting. Hence everything was available for a siege, however long. Moreover, after Pompey's capture of Jerusalem, fear and experience taught them many lessons. So taking advantage of the money-grubbing instincts of the Claudian period, they purchased permission to fortify the city, and in the days of peace built walls meant for war. Already the home of a motley concourse, its population had been swollen by the fall of the other Jewish cities, for the most determined partisan leaders escaped to the capital, and thereby added to the turmoil. There were three different leaders and three armies. The long outer perimeter of the walls was held by Simon, the central part of the city by John, and the Temple by Eleazar. John and Simon could rely on numbers and equipment, Eleazar on his strategic position. But it was upon each other that they turned the weapons of battle, ambush and fire, and great stocks of corn went up in flames. Then John sent off a party of men, ostensibly to offer sacrifice but in reality to cut Eleazar and his followers to pieces, thus gaining possession of the Temple. Hence-forward, therefore, Jerusalem was divided between two factions, until, on the approach of the Romans, fighting the foreigner healed the breach between them. In the passage below we find Titus used Fort Antonia as his base of operations on the day the temple was burned 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) This 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." Why was Solomon anointed king of Israel in 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. 2Ch_32:30 This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works. 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. Watch the TH-cam video “The Temple Mount is Roman Fort Antonia”, By Leeland Jones, to see the emblem of a scorpion on the underground section of “The Wailing Wall”. The scorpion was the symbol of the Roman Praetorian guards. Mar_15:16 And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band. Why would the Romans destroy their own fort during 70 AD, which was named after a Roman? During 73 AD the Jewish leader at Masada said the only thing left of Jerusalem was that which belonged to the Romans. Where is that Roman fort today? In the passage below the Apostle Paul is rescued by the soldiers who "ran down" the stairs to rescue Paul. This passage proves the temple was below the Roman fort. After Paul was arrested by the Romans, he asks to speak to the people from the stairs on the way up to Fort Antonia (the castle). Act 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut. Act 21:31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Act 21:32 Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. Act 21:33 Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done. 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 21:35 And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people. Act 21:36 For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him. Paul Speaks to the People 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 21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people. Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
100% I don't know why these guys tend to pick and choose the information they present in their videos but it's very disingenuous. In truth the only main reason for the temple location to be on the so called temple mount is tradition which didn't start until the newer city was built and people just started saying it. All of the old writings and scripture more accurately place all temples in the City of David.
I went with Hayovel last year for 3 weeks to plant trees, and would gladly go again. It was my first time to Israel, and the memories will last a lifetime. I'll be back one day soon, when the Mount of Olives splits in two at Yeshua's arrival.
You don't build Ophel stairs and the entrance of Robinson's arch, which is actually a continuation of that route that brought people from the city of David, for nothing. Second, I'm pretty sure that those who chose that area from the much larger part that made up the western wall, were indeed closed off from the area in the plateau where the temple mount existed. El Aqsa mosque is considered much more important for Arabs than Omar mosque, is older than Omar and is closer to Temple Mount location.
@@galewollenberg786Romans never went to that amount of effort to establish a camp in a back water like Jerusalem. Go and have a look at the massive foundation stones which suggest that would be overkill for a mere camp for tents.
@@somethingtothinkabout167 Are you a bona fide college trained archaeologist? If not, you probably need to think further about what you are trying to tell me.
I think they are saying that there was no water on the present temple mount when SOLOMON built his Temple around 966 BC. They do not say there was no water during the time of the Maccabees and the Roman Empire, in fact they say the present Temple Mount was the Roman fortress called Antonio’s Fortress, which was home to more than 10,000 people (obviously needing water). I personally have no idea because I was not there. No one is lying, why would he? He may be mistaken, but I see no reason to lie about it. And yes, I would like you to address his other arguments in favor of the Temple being in the City of David. Thanks
Ernest Martin never said that water in any form whatsoever has never existed on the temple mount. He said there was no "living water", which refers to fresh, flowing water. Cistern water is not holy or purifying. I'm not convinced either way, but alarms go off when I hear false representations.
As an older man from the US I do enjoy the knowledge that you share. I do not know a lot but I am learning every day. As a man that loves to study Religon and Christian History I have found that ISRAEL is the center of all things. The more you share the more I learn. So with that I ask you to please share more, teach more and show more about the history of the Mount.
Todah rabah for sharing these informations! Would be great if you explained also the Antonia fortress issue! Thank you again for your faithful reporting! ❤️🇮🇱🕊
I agree on the Antonia fortress issue needing clarity.... There is no way a little fort holding 600 troops was ever going to control the Jews of Israel. Something is missing here.
In the old testament it specifically says that the Ark Of The Covenant was taken out of the tabernacle in the city of David and brought up to the temple. That is enough to tell me the Temple Mount was where the temple was.
I'm interested in hearing more about the rightful location of the temple mount. I'm one of those that believed what I heard about it being in the City of David.
Well done. I think that the City of David temple location option is bought into by well-meaning folks who would like to see an "easier" or more peaceful path to the rebuilding of the temple than removing the Dome of the rock.
“Living Water” is FLOWING water. Not water gathered in a cistern and sitting there for months. The current belief that Antonia is located at the north west corner of the ‘Temple Mount’ is silly. Thousands of Roman soldiers (everything they needed ) and Calvary (their horses and everything they needed) could not live there. It’s simply not big enough. Add to that, the fact that Josephus wrote the fortress was built upon a great precipice. The currently claimed fortress is hundreds of feet from the precipice. But don’t let reality get in your way of worshipping the impressive foundations of the ancient Roman fortress.
Yes indeed! Share more archaeologal content as well as the news. There is something else that I am curious about. Under the Dome of the Rock is supposed to be where the Ark of the Covenant. But I was wondering if it could be the stop of the altar outside of the Temple. This is where Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac and, when David purchased this place for the site of the Temple, he also offered up a sacrifice ("I will not sacrifice that which costs me nothing!"), etc. So is there a possibility of that? Just asking. I hope that someone in archaeology could consider checking this out. Thanks! Shana Tovah! Shalom! And I'm praying for the peace of Jerusalem and for the peace of Israel!
I am a Christian. I am reading the Bible from beginning to end and am currently on 2 Kings. In church, we had an archeologist speak, who is actually working on a discovery in Israel less than a year ago. I am writing this after the introduction and am interested to learn more about what I have read, from the locations to descriptions of temple
I totally agree! Here is a comment I left on Sergio and Rhoda’s channel a couple days ago on this very subject: I’ve been here for 3 weeks and have endeavored to settle in my mind the actual location of the temple and decide between the two locations of the crucifixión and burial. As for the Temple Mount, after taking the Great Bridge Tour and seeing the massive footer stones laid by Herod, also the fact that the aqueduct had been nearly all excavated and identified, I have little doubt that the traditionally held site is the actual Temple Mount. Also the decline is so severe going down to the City of David, I cannot conceive of the possibility of the Temple Mount being located in the alternative location. Also I have walked all over the Temple Mount and there is h more “debris and trash” than what you mentioned, there are very weathered columns and sone everywhere, many beautifully engraved capitals lying in multiple places, also very weathered.
What if this isn't the REAL TEMPLE MOUNT???( Josephus in the war of JEWS, why did he say in the First Book; the seventh Chapter paragraph 1 say that the TEMPLE was in the valley???) It say( At the treatment POMPEY was very angry, and took ARISTOBULUS into custody. And when he was come to the city, he looked about where he might make his attack: for he saw the walls were so firm, that it would be hard to overcome them, and the valley before the walls was terrible: and that the TEMPLE, WHICH WAS WITHIN THAT VALLEY WAS ITSELF ENCOMPASSED WITH A VERY STRONG WALL. Insomuch that if the city were taken, that TEMPLE would be a second place of refuge for the enemy to retire into.
Jesus open the eyes and hearts of the people of Israel to the Truth of God's Holy Word the Bible in Jesus name I pray I pray for the Peace of Jerusalem Amen 🙏
I'm very Jewish. I love your shows. I planted trees in Israel when I was 16, 1966. at that time, we wern't allowed to go to the Western Wall, and could only try to see it from a distance, but too cloudy that day to see it. Since than, husband and I go frequently. I'm currently in a wheel chair and would love to know if and when the Pilgrim Road would be open for disabled. I simply can't find info, Thanks for your show.
Well done! Quite impressed with your knowledge and familiarity with the Temple Mount. I think the "argument" is simply an attempt to say that if the Jews are wrong about where the Temple Mount is, what else are they wrong about? Their answer would be everything. But at least they say there was a Jewish Temple as opposed to the Pales who say there wasn't even that. May truth ring forth in this New Year! Blessings!
The prophecy on the Jews is that their own Jewish rabbis will lead them astray and that is why they need to follow the good shepherd. Ezekiel 34. I found the good shepard. To those who find the promised Isaiah 53 Savior and submit they actually become the temple. Like Samson they will have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Jews actually have all the answers, but unless they actually love God more than culture, family, education, and religion they will struggle to find him this side of Heaven due to their pride for idolatry. Yet, God sees them trying and loves them dearly. Holy Spirit filled Christians carry one type of blessings, Practicing Jews carry another type of blessing. What’s going on is all talked about in scripture. Scripture isn’t only about the past, it’s active and each prophecy keeps being fulfilled. The dead sea scrolls prove it wasn’t changed, and the past 2000 years prove it’s still being fulfilled. It’s all so simple that it’s easy to miss if your listening to the wrong teachings about it instead of just listening to what it actually says.
@@SRose-vp6ew Those who would lead us astray, are the ones promoting a false prophet, who cannot be the messiah, as he is a mamzer, and never did any of the things that a messiah must do. In all ways, your false god is the anti-messiah, because so many innocent Jews have been brutally tortured and murdered, in his name.
Isn't there still debris with engravings around the Temple mount with Levitical designations to the blowing of trumpets? I wonder how this person explains that? Have a good Rosh Hashanah!
There are four different large, unavoidable archeological sites that cannot be dismissed that point to the Temple being farther South in the City of David. Hezekiah's tunnel routs water much farther South for some reason. His purpose was to hold out in the Citadel of David against attacking armies. If the Acra (Citadel of David) was not straight over the tunnel outlet, then Hezekiah would have had to manually carry the water farther North, about a quarter mile away to where the Acra did stand. Not only that but in time of war, if the outer walls were breached, he would have been handing the enemy a water source. So no doubt the Acra was over the outlet of Hezekiah tunnel. Josephus tells us how the Acra was eventually torn down and leveled because the enemy would capture it and use it to ambush the Temple precincts. So the Temple was located near the Acra which was over atop of Hezekiah's tunnel. Second, there is the millo, a land fill between two very important parts of the City. This millo is much farther South the City of David. There must have been a very important part of the City connecting to it in ancient times such as the Acra (or Citadel of David). Third, The North wall of the ancient Temple precinct was the Ophel, which is South of the Haram al Sharif. Forth, in biblical times, the Temple needed fresh water for Temple services. And the only source of running, fresh water is the Gihon. The Temple must have been near the Gihon springs.
The site of the temple is of academic interest but the site is not occupied by the Lord as it no the home of the Lord as he is everywhere and his Spirit I dwells the believers the new temple will be desecrated by the antichrist (false Messiah )
I agree with the theory that the Temple was further down south, multiple ancient sources described the location as being more south . I just don't understand why they can't explore the theory of the temple being down more south because ! I mean to build the temple on the Temple mount will cause a war in the middle east !
Ben, I suggest you finish reading Martin's book before trashing it and his "theory". Cornuke is known for "flashyness" and taking credit for other's discoveries. While I haven't read or seen Cornuke's info, I found what you had to say about the water interesting. I tend to agree with a lot more of Martin's work than you do (obviously), but Martin's theory was NOT in David's City, but between David's city and the current "Temple Mount". He has a number of interesting points if you are willing to be open to something other than "tradition." Again, I suggest you actually READ a book before throwing it out with the trash.
Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. (2 Chron. 3:1) . That does not mean today's temple mount. In fact, Jesus said when looking upon the site that "not one stone will be left atop another." Yet, on the so-called temple mount we have walls and original pavers. Did Jesus lie? Or was he mistaken? I do not think so. Yet, the only thing that matters concerning the temple the Pseudo Messiah builds is that he builds one, prophetically speaking. It is the events surrounding a temple in Jerusalem that impacts future history. It scarcely matters where for the sake of Daniel 9:27, Matt. 24, 2 Thes. 2 and Revelation 13-14 events.
Yes there were cisterns on the Temple Mount, and Cornuke does cover this, but they were added during the Roman period. The Romans also had an aqueduct that brought water in. The original temple which predated the Romans had no such thing.
Ben- Great episode! Please continue with addressing the issues related to the Temple. I agree that the Martin/Cornuke theory about the temple location is nonsense. I address numerous issues about the temple and the ark of the covenant in my book 'The Temple Solution' and suggest the true location of the temple was within the Jewish Quarter close to Hurva square. As you know, this is also very close to the newly discovered aqueduct. I hope you get a chance to read my book and continue to discuss these important issues.
The word Shiloh (tranquil) is still thought by some to refer to the “tranquil land”. The Ark and the Mishkan resided at Shiloh first, then moved for 20 years to Kiryath Yarim and a few other sites, until Daud (David) moved it to the City of Daud. (see Yahusha/Joshua 18:1, 1 Shemual/Samuel 4:4, 2 Shemual 6, YirmeYahu/Jeremiah 7:12) We who identify the term “Shiloh” with Yahusha our Mashiak think of it as one of His titles.
While I agree that the temple is where the Temple Mount is, I would just keep in mind when debating ideas or theories that go into other possibilities such as the the temple being in the City of David, it doesn’t mean people that pose those questions are necessarily Israel haters or have any nefarious agenda. Bob Cornuke is a brother in Christ and to my knowledge, loves Israel and has no nefarious agenda against Israel. He just happens to think there’s a possibility that it could actually be in the city of David. I believe he’s wrong, but we don’t have talk down about him as if he’s ignorant or acting in malice. He’s still one of us and he belongs to Yeshua too.
Not my intention in the least bit. My question is how can he put years of research into this, write a book, produce videos etc, and not know about really really basic historical and archaeological things that prove his claims false? How can he say there wasn't a drop of water on the Temple Mount when there was clearly hundreds of millions of gallons? He continues to lie about archaeologist Eli Shukran damaging his reputation, he was very dishonest with facts and sources in his book on the subject, and routinely refuses to engage in any kind of academic discussion or debate with people knowledgeable on the subject. We reached out to him for an interview to include in our series on the subject offering to let him answer the objections from Joseph Good and other scholars methodically. To foster transparency, we offered to release the entire version unedited on our channel as well. He initially agreed, then ended up ghosting us.
Ben, thank you for the interesting info on the cisterns and aquaducts in connection with the so-called Temple Mount. The question that is very puzzling and confusing to me is how can the Western Wall be any part of the Temple Mount in light of the following: Matthew 24:1-2 : "And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away, and His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple. But He answered and said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, There shall by no means be left here a stone upon a stone, which shall not be thrown down. Josephus (1st C. historian): "It was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by these that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had even been inhabited." Eleazar Ben Jair (Commander at Masada): "It (Jerusalem) is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing left but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those (Romans) that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins"
Eleazar was not an eyewitness to the events as Ernest Martin and Bob Cornuke claim. He fled Jerusalem for Masada as soon as the revolt began. Furthermore, Josephus never heard him give this speech. At best, it was conveyed to him by one of the few survivors of Masada that hid in a cistern. It may have just invented by Josephus as some sort of heroic speech, as was common in ancient writing. But the biggest problem is that when you look at the context of this statement, Eleazar was not talking about the temple or the Temple Mount. He was talking about Herod's palace on the Western Hill near the modern Jaffa Gate. Earlier in the same book (Jewish War, Volume VII.1.1), as Josephus was reporting on what had occurred in the city, he described how the Romans razed the city and the temple to the ground, and then he stated that only the loftiest towers (Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamne) and a portion of the wall on the west were left for the Roman army to stay in. This was at Herod's palace.
Why is there no mention in ancient Jewish texts of the massive rock boulder that the Dome of the Rock building is built around? If there was a huge Jewish Temple that existed there 2000 years ago, what purpose would that rock have served? It would have made no sense why the builders of the Temple would have left that rock to stay there and not got rid of it as an obstruction. The fact that that massive rock is on Mt Moriah suggests there was no Temple there in the first place, and it must have been built somewhere else such as where other experts are saying: in the city of david.
The following proves you are correct about the rock. Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, and that rock is in the same place today. Based on Acts 21:31-40, we know the Roman fort was above the temple because the soldiers had to go “down” the stairs to rescue Paul from the mob at the temple. Paul later spoke to the crowd below from the steps on his way up to Fort Antonia. 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.
Its not a pop theory,the bible author's first said Its in the city of david...ofcourse when rome destroyed it in 70 a.d. they took the most prized materials of the temple,and put them in the roman fort north of the city of David. Has anyone found the exact location of the Roman fort,or any artifacts from the fort? They would find some really important items from the Temple.
The fort was destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem. Where does the bible say it is in the City of David? For one the temple mount would have been directly adjacent to what we now understand to be the city of David. And besides if a new building is build at the outskirts of a village is the building outside of the village or has the village just grown?
Just a note on the aqua ducts. I think you said Harrod built the upper and lower ducts. The second temple (and the first) were located and built long before then
My dear boys. Do your homework properly. King David bought the thrashing floor from Ornan the Jebusite, in order to build the House of the Lord there. And king Solomo let it materialize there. NOT on Mount Moriah...
Fascinating! Thank you so much for this video and videos like this. I must admit I believed this alternate theory because they packaged it so neatly, but their arguments really don't hold water (no pun intended), after some real facts are applied. I appreciate you shedding light on this in a straightforward manner. Please continue making videos like this!
PS RE: your disrespectful comments on the late Dr Ernest L Martin: using your fingers as Quotes that he was a Bible scholar…apparently the Hebrew University, as in of Israel, might have considered him Biblically scholar he was Ambassador of the greatest archeological dig (Hebrew University) the Wailing Wall 1969-1973 supervising nearly 500 college students…Time magazine featured his work with those students. Shame on you, God put you in a position to broadcast Good News, not to slander men who have done a lot more than you… I am praying for you, I believe you are capable of better Jesus loves you...a.
When I was a child God told me something I never forgot. Something Is coming in from space that will give men heart attacks and no babies will be born. Now I know it as men impatient with fear. Praise God
I was on a behind the scenes tour where they showed us some pre-existing altars well before the Temple Mount was built. Do you think these people are confusing that with the Temple Mount?
They aren't going to listen 😢 All they want is the Ze 3rd Temple 😡 & when I say they I mean Ze Christians calling up their Yeshua to commence Ze End of Days 🤦🏻♂️
Probably ! I have watch a lot of videos about archeology and traditional biblical sites in Israel our based on what crusaders assigned the location to be. That's why there is two grave sites for king David, one base on the crusaders designated and other that archaeologist found later .
@@lilicrane5955 👍🏻 getting more interesting as we delve deeper into Ze Abyss 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Note : Ze Templers suddenly packed up & left Ze Holy Land 😉 & I've always wondered what Spooked those Fanatics 🤭
Cornuke actually implies this in his book. He also implies Eli Shukran former head archeologist for the City of David believes this as well. Eli is furious about this and set the record straight in an interview he did with us for the series we produced on the subject.
Water had to be running water. Is it certain that it was the Israelites that built the cisterns, and not the Romans? The Maccabean aqueduct system should not be considered as this was far after the temple was built. Questions questions questions 😁
May , i ask a question, i was told that the Scriptures say that the temple would so badly torn down that there would not be one stone left , that it would be like a new plowed field there is a place like that close to the temple mount and more underground cisterns
Shalom--thank you for sharing. Yes, we heard about the claims/controversies on the location of the Temple and looked into it. The overwhelming evidence proves the Temple Mount to be Herod's Temple. The Mishna also verifies how the kohenim extracted water from the cisterns for daily service in the days of Herod.
Compleatly taken out of context. Tell me about the Roman baths under the mount. Do you think God would want them to use second best water to clean and purify the preists and sacrifice. Or pure running water or aka living water. Also another thing why would they build a temple outside the city walls so it would not be protected. One more thing I see missing the fires of 70 ad when the temple was burned. Evidence is seen in the city of David. I do not recall seeing any fire destruction on the mount.. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but evidence proves its self all in time. Just build the temple
Norma Robertson also argues that the true location of the temple can be found by following the water channels that Warren documented. She places the location, not under the Dome of the Rock, as do most traditionalists. Rather, she locates the temple but a bit southward, near the Al Aqsa Mosque. Yet, this location is still up on the temple mount platform and also corresponds to where the trumpeting stone fell. Thus, she also agrees the temple was not located down in the City of David.
The very first temple, and likely even the temple off Melchisadec, has been found. And it's directly adjacent to the Ghijon Spring. As it should be, because living water is required for the sacrifices and bathing. The mount has ZERO water supply. The mount was Fort Antonia, a 36 acre military compound.
Where is the Fort of Antonia? Did Rome Destroy it's own Fort while leaving Stones upon each other at Temple Foundation? Josephus wrote that even the Foundation Stones were Removed to extract molten Gold & Silver. Again. Where is Fort of Antonia?
It just ptoves that the temple mount had water made available by man. God would provide the water which would not be contaminated by man made aquaducts.
Please keep news about what is happening on the real temple mount front and center in your reports, thank you so much, you cover this like no one else.
Come to Israel on our volunteer tree planting trip this October: serveisrael.com/volunteer/planting/
Jesus personally said that there wouldn’t be one stone left standing upon another, so if you believe that the fortress Antonia was the Temple Mount, you are calling Jesus a liar, as well as Josephus.
You are being lied to by the synagogue of satan that Jesus also told us about and Jesus also mentioned deception in the last days so you may want to hear Him.
If you can’t believe Him in the small things then that explains why you can’t believe Him in the Greater things.
Show me the cisterns under the Temple in Scripture?
Robinson’s Arch is just the end of the causeway to the Temple.
Eat lies if you want to but you’ve been told.
Yes please do more about Israel Archeological information.
Historical and archaeological sites should be protected from the evil haters who do not care or just wipe away the truth!
We need not worry though- they cannot wipe away the creator of all things!
I hear you though- it’s awful to watch evil at work.
Thank you very much israel guys ❤ chana tova ou metouka 🍎🍯
Repent and believe the gospel. All of the Bible is true. Everybody needs Jesus. Bob Cornuke isn't even an archeologist. The only expert is God.
I understand why people want the Martin theory to be true. It seems impossible to replace the dome because of politics. However, nothing is impossible for G-d
Would love more teachings like this ... Todah Rabah, and Shana Tova!! Blessings, Debbie
You're very welcome
He said there was No running water on the temple mount.... not that there was no water. The priests had to wash themselves in running water before they entered the holy of holies. The closest running water was 1/4 of a mile away at the Gihon spring
When Solomon's temple was erected, did he provide cisterns or water systems to support the worship? The water systems described in this video clearly came later.
שנה טובה ומבורכת. שיהיה לנו ולכם שנה עוד יותר מוצלחת.
שנה טובה ידידים! אוהבים אותכם!
wowwww this is so amazing Dear Ben and Dear Israel Guys.🥰😍🤗
What did the first century eyewitnesses say about the location of the ancient Jewish temple?
In the writings of the Roman Historian Tacitus below he said a “spring of never-failing water” came out of the Jewish temple. The Bible makes references to "living water", which is flowing water. Why? Spring water is usually purer than water stored in cisterns. The Gihon Spring is a rare siphon spring which was capable to pumping water uphill several times a day. The word Gihon means "gusher".
(The Jews Book Five (1-13) of The Histories by Tacitus )
12. The Temple was like a citadel and had its own walls, which had been even more laboriously and skilfully constructed than the rest. The porticoes around it constituted in themselves an excellent defensive position. To these advantages must be added a spring of never-failing water, chambers cut in the living rock, and tanks and cisterns for the storage of rainwater. Its builders had foreseen only too well that the strange practices of the Jews would lead to continual fighting. Hence everything was available for a siege, however long. Moreover, after Pompey's capture of Jerusalem, fear and experience taught them many lessons. So taking advantage of the money-grubbing instincts of the Claudian period, they purchased permission to fortify the city, and in the days of peace built walls meant for war. Already the home of a motley concourse, its population had been swollen by the fall of the other Jewish cities, for the most determined partisan leaders escaped to the capital, and thereby added to the turmoil. There were three different leaders and three armies. The long outer perimeter of the walls was held by Simon, the central part of the city by John, and the Temple by Eleazar. John and Simon could rely on numbers and equipment, Eleazar on his strategic position. But it was upon each other that they turned the weapons of battle, ambush and fire, and great stocks of corn went up in flames. Then John sent off a party of men, ostensibly to offer sacrifice but in reality to cut Eleazar and his followers to pieces, thus gaining possession of the Temple. Hence-forward, therefore, Jerusalem was divided between two factions, until, on the approach of the Romans, fighting the foreigner healed the breach between them.
In the passage below we find Titus used Fort Antonia as his base of operations on the day the temple was burned 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)
This 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."
Why was Solomon anointed king of Israel in 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.
2Ch_32:30 This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.
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.
Watch the TH-cam video “The Temple Mount is Roman Fort Antonia”, By Leeland Jones, to see the emblem of a scorpion on the underground section of “The Wailing Wall”. The scorpion was the symbol of the Roman Praetorian guards.
Mar_15:16 And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.
Why would the Romans destroy their own fort during 70 AD, which was named after a Roman?
During 73 AD the Jewish leader at Masada said the only thing left of Jerusalem was that which belonged to the Romans. Where is that Roman fort today?
In the passage below the Apostle Paul is rescued by the soldiers who "ran down" the stairs to rescue Paul. This passage proves the temple was below the Roman fort. After Paul was arrested by the Romans, he asks to speak to the people from the stairs on the way up to Fort Antonia (the castle).
Act 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.
Act 21:31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
Act 21:32 Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul.
Act 21:33 Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done.
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 21:35 And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people.
Act 21:36 For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him.
Paul Speaks to the People
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 21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
100% I don't know why these guys tend to pick and choose the information they present in their videos but it's very disingenuous. In truth the only main reason for the temple location to be on the so called temple mount is tradition which didn't start until the newer city was built and people just started saying it. All of the old writings and scripture more accurately place all temples in the City of David.
Josephus also says it is in the city of David.
I went with Hayovel last year for 3 weeks to plant trees, and would gladly go again. It was my first time to Israel, and the memories will last a lifetime. I'll be back one day soon, when the Mount of Olives splits in two at Yeshua's arrival.
It just confirms that the mount belongs to Israel. Great information!
You don't build Ophel stairs and the entrance of Robinson's arch, which is actually a continuation of that route that brought people from the city of David, for nothing. Second, I'm pretty sure that those who chose that area from the much larger part that made up the western wall, were indeed closed off from the area in the plateau where the temple mount existed.
El Aqsa mosque is considered much more important for Arabs than Omar mosque, is older than Omar and is closer to Temple Mount location.
Amen 🙏
Actually it belongs to the roman empire as it is fortress Antonia!
@@galewollenberg786Romans never went to that amount of effort to establish a camp in a back water like Jerusalem. Go and have a look at the massive foundation stones which suggest that would be overkill for a mere camp for tents.
@@somethingtothinkabout167 Are you a bona fide college trained archaeologist? If not, you probably need to think further about what you are trying to tell me.
I think they are saying that there was no water on the present temple mount when SOLOMON built his Temple around 966 BC. They do not say there was no water during the time of the Maccabees and the Roman Empire, in fact they say the present Temple Mount was the Roman fortress called Antonio’s Fortress, which was home to more than 10,000 people (obviously needing water). I personally have no idea because I was not there. No one is lying, why would he? He may be mistaken, but I see no reason to lie about it.
And yes, I would like you to address his other arguments in favor of the Temple being in the City of David. Thanks
Definitely do more shows to correct false information that is being distributed. Thanks!
Will do!
Do you worship God? Or Israel?
Shana Tova Blessings.🙏❤🇮🇱
Ernest Martin never said that water in any form whatsoever has never existed on the temple mount. He said there was no "living water", which refers to fresh, flowing water. Cistern water is not holy or purifying. I'm not convinced either way, but alarms go off when I hear false representations.
Yes please!
As an older man from the US I do enjoy the knowledge that you share. I do not know a lot but I am learning every day. As a man that loves to study Religon and Christian History I have found that ISRAEL is the center of all things. The more you share the more I learn.
So with that I ask you to please share more, teach more and show more about the history of the Mount.
Todah rabah for sharing these informations! Would be great if you explained also the Antonia fortress issue!
Thank you again for your faithful reporting!
❤️🇮🇱🕊
Hi, The Israel Guys made a whole series about the Temple Mount and they discuss the Antonia Fortress issue there.
Yes you can check out our series, hopefully I can do more shows on this as well
I agree on the Antonia fortress issue needing clarity.... There is no way a little fort holding 600 troops was ever going to control the Jews of Israel. Something is missing here.
In the old testament it specifically says that the Ark Of The Covenant was taken out of the tabernacle in the city of David and brought up to the temple. That is enough to tell me the Temple Mount was where the temple was.
You would think this would be clear enough...
YES, PLEASE GET INTO IT, DO MORE!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!
Ben, you are so likeable! God bless you and God bless Israel!
Beautiful description and well said, thanks!
I'm interested in hearing more about the rightful location of the temple mount. I'm one of those that believed what I heard about it being in the City of David.
Before the Temple was built in the mount the site was in a tent in the city of david.
Hopefully much more to come on this topic!
Where was the Temple in Jerusalem? (Episode #1) The Israel Guys
th-cam.com/video/5S5GoufYQO4/w-d-xo.html
Ditto. Cornuke is correct.
👍🏻 Interesting, tx! Yes please .. shine more truth to remedy the lies against Israel
Well done. I think that the City of David temple location option is bought into by well-meaning folks who would like to see an "easier" or more peaceful path to the rebuilding of the temple than removing the Dome of the rock.
God bless isreal whith peace
“Living Water” is FLOWING water. Not water gathered in a cistern and sitting there for months.
The current belief that Antonia is located at the north west corner of the ‘Temple Mount’ is silly.
Thousands of Roman soldiers (everything they needed ) and Calvary (their horses and everything they needed) could not live there. It’s simply not big enough.
Add to that, the fact that Josephus wrote the fortress was built upon a great precipice. The currently claimed fortress is hundreds of feet from the precipice.
But don’t let reality get in your way of worshipping the impressive foundations of the ancient Roman fortress.
Do all the archeological themed show you can. Fascinating!!
Love the content! Can you please add links to maps, drawings and/or pictures please. BRAVO! Be Well & Blessed, Phillip
But... isn't the title a bit misleading?
Thank you for this truth. My husband is a Temple teacher. We love when you guy’s tackle this subject!
👏
That is awesome!
Great News .......🎉
There is no natural RUNNING water on the temple mount. Cornuke emphasizes that it must be a pure natural RUNNING water source.
These young kids have no clue, you are correct. See my replies.
Yes, it should be “living water” not stagnant storage tank water
@@found.ernest Yes just as Cornuke pointed out. Most of the know-it-alls speak from a swivel chair never having done any comprehensive research.
More like this, please.. and, Shabbat shalom and sjana tova🎉
Yes indeed! Share more archaeologal content as well as the news.
There is something else that I am curious about. Under the Dome of the Rock is supposed to be where the Ark of the Covenant. But I was wondering if it could be the stop of the altar outside of the Temple. This is where Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac and, when David purchased this place for the site of the Temple, he also offered up a sacrifice ("I will not sacrifice that which costs me nothing!"), etc. So is there a possibility of that? Just asking. I hope that someone in archaeology could consider checking this out. Thanks!
Shana Tovah! Shalom! And I'm praying for the peace of Jerusalem and for the peace of Israel!
I am a Christian. I am reading the Bible from beginning to end and am currently on 2 Kings. In church, we had an archeologist speak, who is actually working on a discovery in Israel less than a year ago. I am writing this after the introduction and am interested to learn more about what I have read, from the locations to descriptions of temple
I totally agree! Here is a comment I left on Sergio and Rhoda’s channel a couple days ago on this very subject: I’ve been here for 3 weeks and have endeavored to settle in my mind the actual location of the temple and decide between the two locations of the crucifixión and burial. As for the Temple Mount, after taking the Great Bridge Tour and seeing the massive footer stones laid by Herod, also the fact that the aqueduct had been nearly all excavated and identified, I have little doubt that the traditionally held site is the actual Temple Mount. Also the decline is so severe going down to the City of David, I cannot conceive of the possibility of the Temple Mount being located in the alternative location. Also I have walked all over the Temple Mount and there is h more “debris and trash” than what you mentioned, there are very weathered columns and sone everywhere, many beautifully engraved capitals lying in multiple places, also very weathered.
Definitely, Ben, do more!
What if this isn't the REAL TEMPLE MOUNT???( Josephus in the war of JEWS, why did he say in the First Book; the seventh Chapter paragraph 1 say that the TEMPLE was in the valley???) It say( At the treatment POMPEY was very angry, and took ARISTOBULUS into custody. And when he was come to the city, he looked about where he might make his attack: for he saw the walls were so firm, that it would be hard to overcome them, and the valley before the walls was terrible: and that the TEMPLE, WHICH WAS WITHIN THAT VALLEY WAS ITSELF ENCOMPASSED WITH A VERY STRONG WALL. Insomuch that if the city were taken, that TEMPLE would be a second place of refuge for the enemy to retire into.
Jesus open the eyes and hearts of the people of Israel to the Truth of God's Holy Word the Bible in Jesus name I pray I pray for the Peace of Jerusalem Amen 🙏
Excellent news!
Bring the red heffer out and do what you have to do.
By doing that just shows that they still reject Messiah!
Both temples were located on the temple mount. What is there to discuss?
I'm very Jewish. I love your shows. I planted trees in Israel when I was 16, 1966. at that time, we wern't allowed to go to the Western Wall, and could only try to see it from a distance, but too cloudy that day to see it. Since than, husband and I go frequently. I'm currently in a wheel chair and would love to know if and when the Pilgrim Road would be open for disabled. I simply can't find info, Thanks for your show.
Well done! Quite impressed with your knowledge and familiarity with the Temple Mount. I think the "argument" is simply an attempt to say that if the Jews are wrong about where the Temple Mount is, what else are they wrong about? Their answer would be everything. But at least they say there was a Jewish Temple as opposed to the Pales who say there wasn't even that. May truth ring forth in this New Year! Blessings!
The prophecy on the Jews is that their own Jewish rabbis will lead them astray and that is why they need to follow the good shepherd. Ezekiel 34. I found the good shepard. To those who find the promised Isaiah 53 Savior and submit they actually become the temple. Like Samson they will have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Jews actually have all the answers, but unless they actually love God more than culture, family, education, and religion they will struggle to find him this side of Heaven due to their pride for idolatry. Yet, God sees them trying and loves them dearly. Holy Spirit filled Christians carry one type of blessings, Practicing Jews carry another type of blessing. What’s going on is all talked about in scripture. Scripture isn’t only about the past, it’s active and each prophecy keeps being fulfilled. The dead sea scrolls prove it wasn’t changed, and the past 2000 years prove it’s still being fulfilled. It’s all so simple that it’s easy to miss if your listening to the wrong teachings about it instead of just listening to what it actually says.
@@SRose-vp6ew Those who would lead us astray, are the ones promoting a false prophet, who cannot be the messiah, as he is a mamzer, and never did any of the things that a messiah must do. In all ways, your false god is the anti-messiah, because so many innocent Jews have been brutally tortured and murdered, in his name.
Isn't there still debris with engravings around the Temple mount with Levitical designations to the blowing of trumpets? I wonder how this person explains that? Have a good Rosh Hashanah!
Cover new biblical archeology also!
There are four different large, unavoidable archeological sites that cannot be dismissed that point to the Temple being farther South in the City of David. Hezekiah's tunnel routs water much farther South for some reason. His purpose was to hold out in the Citadel of David against attacking armies. If the Acra (Citadel of David) was not straight over the tunnel outlet, then Hezekiah would have had to manually carry the water farther North, about a quarter mile away to where the Acra did stand. Not only that but in time of war, if the outer walls were breached, he would have been handing the enemy a water source. So no doubt the Acra was over the outlet of Hezekiah tunnel. Josephus tells us how the Acra was eventually torn down and leveled because the enemy would capture it and use it to ambush the Temple precincts. So the Temple was located near the Acra which was over atop of Hezekiah's tunnel.
Second, there is the millo, a land fill between two very important parts of the City. This millo is much farther South the City of David. There must have been a very important part of the City connecting to it in ancient times such as the Acra (or Citadel of David).
Third, The North wall of the ancient Temple precinct was the Ophel, which is South of the Haram al Sharif.
Forth, in biblical times, the Temple needed fresh water for Temple services. And the only source of running, fresh water is the Gihon. The Temple must have been near the Gihon springs.
The site of the temple is of academic interest but the site is not occupied by the
Lord as it no the home of the Lord as he is everywhere and his Spirit I dwells the believers the new temple will be desecrated by the antichrist (false Messiah )
I believe the temple was on the Mount not in the city of David
Not the actual Temple, but the Tabanicals, which was a tent
@@barriesmith3489
You are free to believe what you will. But the question is why you believe it.
I agree with the theory that the Temple was further down south, multiple ancient sources described the location as being more south . I just don't understand why they can't explore the theory of the temple being down more south because ! I mean to build the temple on the Temple mount will cause a war in the middle east !
Ben, I suggest you finish reading Martin's book before trashing it and his "theory". Cornuke is known for "flashyness" and taking credit for other's discoveries. While I haven't read or seen Cornuke's info, I found what you had to say about the water interesting. I tend to agree with a lot more of Martin's work than you do (obviously), but Martin's theory was NOT in David's City, but between David's city and the current "Temple Mount". He has a number of interesting points if you are willing to be open to something other than "tradition." Again, I suggest you actually READ a book before throwing it out with the trash.
Shana Tova !!
I would love it if you can please do more teachings like this one.😊
Please make more fascinating shows like this one!
Hopefully we can!
Yes! Do more shows on these archeological finds!
Please do more on the Temple Mount!👍
Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. (2 Chron. 3:1) . That does not mean today's temple mount. In fact, Jesus said when looking upon the site that "not one stone will be left atop another." Yet, on the so-called temple mount we have walls and original pavers. Did Jesus lie? Or was he mistaken? I do not think so. Yet, the only thing that matters concerning the temple the Pseudo Messiah builds is that he builds one, prophetically speaking. It is the events surrounding a temple in Jerusalem that impacts future history. It scarcely matters where for the sake of Daniel 9:27, Matt. 24, 2 Thes. 2 and Revelation 13-14 events.
Yes there were cisterns on the Temple Mount, and Cornuke does cover this, but they were added during the Roman period. The Romans also had an aqueduct that brought water in. The original temple which predated the Romans had no such thing.
Shana Tova from east Texas!🤠
Ben- Great episode! Please continue with addressing the issues related to the Temple. I agree that the Martin/Cornuke theory about the temple location is nonsense. I address numerous issues about the temple and the ark of the covenant in my book 'The Temple Solution' and suggest the true location of the temple was within the Jewish Quarter close to Hurva square. As you know, this is also very close to the newly discovered aqueduct. I hope you get a chance to read my book and continue to discuss these important issues.
The word Shiloh (tranquil) is still thought by some to refer to the “tranquil land”. The Ark and the Mishkan resided at Shiloh first, then moved for 20 years to Kiryath Yarim and a few other sites, until Daud (David) moved it to the City of Daud. (see Yahusha/Joshua 18:1, 1 Shemual/Samuel 4:4, 2 Shemual 6, YirmeYahu/Jeremiah 7:12)
We who identify the term “Shiloh” with Yahusha our Mashiak think of it as one of His titles.
While I agree that the temple is where the Temple Mount is, I would just keep in mind when debating ideas or theories that go into other possibilities such as the the temple being in the City of David, it doesn’t mean people that pose those questions are necessarily Israel haters or have any nefarious agenda. Bob Cornuke is a brother in Christ and to my knowledge, loves Israel and has no nefarious agenda against Israel. He just happens to think there’s a possibility that it could actually be in the city of David. I believe he’s wrong, but we don’t have talk down about him as if he’s ignorant or acting in malice. He’s still one of us and he belongs to Yeshua too.
Not my intention in the least bit. My question is how can he put years of research into this, write a book, produce videos etc, and not know about really really basic historical and archaeological things that prove his claims false? How can he say there wasn't a drop of water on the Temple Mount when there was clearly hundreds of millions of gallons? He continues to lie about archaeologist Eli Shukran damaging his reputation, he was very dishonest with facts and sources in his book on the subject, and routinely refuses to engage in any kind of academic discussion or debate with people knowledgeable on the subject. We reached out to him for an interview to include in our series on the subject offering to let him answer the objections from Joseph Good and other scholars methodically. To foster transparency, we offered to release the entire version unedited on our channel as well. He initially agreed, then ended up ghosting us.
@@TheIsraelGuys There is NO running water on the Haram!
some "scholars" love to promote themselves no matter if the are wrong - thanks for the update
To get the water from the Gihon Spring to the Temple would involve movements/apparatuses that kill the Living Water.
Ben, thank you for the interesting info on the cisterns and aquaducts in connection with the so-called Temple Mount. The question that is very puzzling and confusing to me is how can the Western Wall be any part of the Temple Mount in light of the following:
Matthew 24:1-2 : "And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away, and His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple. But He answered and said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, There shall by no means be left here a stone upon a stone, which shall not be thrown down.
Josephus (1st C. historian): "It was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by these that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had even been inhabited."
Eleazar Ben Jair (Commander at Masada): "It (Jerusalem) is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing left but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those (Romans) that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins"
Eleazar was not an eyewitness to the events as Ernest Martin and Bob Cornuke claim. He fled Jerusalem for Masada as soon as the revolt began. Furthermore, Josephus never heard him give this speech. At best, it was conveyed to him by one of the few survivors of Masada that hid in a cistern. It may have just invented by Josephus as some sort of heroic speech, as was common in ancient writing. But the biggest problem is that when you look at the context of this statement, Eleazar was not talking about the temple or the Temple Mount. He was talking about Herod's palace on the Western Hill near the modern Jaffa Gate. Earlier in the same book (Jewish War, Volume VII.1.1), as Josephus was reporting on what had occurred in the city, he described how the Romans razed the city and the temple to the ground, and then he stated that only the loftiest towers (Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamne) and a portion of the wall on the west were left for the Roman army to stay in. This was at Herod's palace.
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! Want to hear MORE on the Temple Mount . . . Please . . . . . .
Why is there no mention in ancient Jewish texts of the massive rock boulder that the Dome of the Rock building is built around? If there was a huge Jewish Temple that existed there 2000 years ago, what purpose would that rock have served? It would have made no sense why the builders of the Temple would have left that rock to stay there and not got rid of it as an obstruction. The fact that that massive rock is on Mt Moriah suggests there was no Temple there in the first place, and it must have been built somewhere else such as where other experts are saying: in the city of david.
The following proves you are correct about the rock. Josephus said Fort Antonia was built upon a gigantic rock, and that rock is in the same place today.
Based on Acts 21:31-40, we know the Roman fort was above the temple because the soldiers had to go “down” the stairs to rescue Paul from the mob at the temple. Paul later spoke to the crowd below from the steps on his way up to Fort Antonia.
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.
Its not a pop theory,the bible author's first said Its in the city of david...ofcourse when rome destroyed it in 70 a.d. they took the most prized materials of the temple,and put them in the roman fort north of the city of David.
Has anyone found the exact location of the Roman fort,or any artifacts from the fort? They would find some really important items from the Temple.
"AND SOLOMON COMMENCED TO BUILD THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD IN JERUSALEM ON MOUNT MORIAH..."
II Chronicles 3:1
The fort was destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem. Where does the bible say it is in the City of David? For one the temple mount would have been directly adjacent to what we now understand to be the city of David. And besides if a new building is build at the outskirts of a village is the building outside of the village or has the village just grown?
Thank you❤
Ready for the third temple to be built. That means it’s time for Jesus to return very quickly!
Would love more information on the temple mount.
Where was the Temple in Jerusalem? (Episode #1) The Israel Guys
th-cam.com/video/5S5GoufYQO4/w-d-xo.html
Yes, yes, yes, teach more on these topics!!
Just a note on the aqua ducts. I think you said Harrod built the upper and lower ducts. The second temple (and the first) were located and built long before then
Zion is blessed of Hashem.
My dear boys. Do your homework properly. King David bought the thrashing floor from Ornan the Jebusite, in order to build the House of the Lord there. And king Solomo let it materialize there. NOT on Mount Moriah...
Fascinating! Thank you so much for this video and videos like this. I must admit I believed this alternate theory because they packaged it so neatly, but their arguments really don't hold water (no pun intended), after some real facts are applied. I appreciate you shedding light on this in a straightforward manner. Please continue making videos like this!
Glad you enjoyed it!
PS RE: your disrespectful comments on the late Dr Ernest L Martin: using your fingers as Quotes that he was a Bible scholar…apparently the Hebrew University, as in of Israel, might have considered him Biblically scholar he was Ambassador of the greatest archeological dig (Hebrew University) the Wailing Wall
1969-1973 supervising nearly 500 college students…Time magazine featured his work with those students.
Shame on you, God put you in a position to broadcast Good News, not to slander men who have done a lot more than you…
I am praying for you,
I believe you are capable of better
Jesus loves you...a.
We live in the age of idiocy. Jews know because We REMEMBER where The Temple was built, TWICE.
Whole Temple Mount belongs to Jewish people from 1000 bce.. love from India❤
When I was a child God told me something I never forgot. Something Is coming in from space that will give men heart attacks and no babies will be born.
Now I know it as men impatient with fear. Praise God
I was on a behind the scenes tour where they showed us some pre-existing altars well before the Temple Mount was built. Do you think these people are confusing that with the Temple Mount?
They aren't going to listen 😢 All they want is the Ze 3rd Temple 😡 & when I say they I mean Ze Christians calling up their Yeshua to commence Ze End of Days 🤦🏻♂️
Probably ! I have watch a lot of videos about archeology and traditional biblical sites in Israel our based on what crusaders assigned the location to be. That's why there is two grave sites for king David, one base on the crusaders designated and other that archaeologist found later .
@@lilicrane5955 👍🏻 getting more interesting as we delve deeper into Ze Abyss 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Note : Ze Templers suddenly packed up & left Ze Holy Land 😉 & I've always wondered what Spooked those Fanatics 🤭
Cornuke actually implies this in his book. He also implies Eli Shukran former head archeologist for the City of David believes this as well. Eli is furious about this and set the record straight in an interview he did with us for the series we produced on the subject.
You should not criticize a book that you have not read saying things about it that you only assume to be true.
Water had to be running water. Is it certain that it was the Israelites that built the cisterns, and not the Romans? The Maccabean aqueduct system should not be considered as this was far after the temple was built. Questions questions questions 😁
Yep followed the arguments and think its clearly still on Mt Moriah
This is really good.
Thank you.
May , i ask a question, i was told that the Scriptures say that the temple would so badly torn down that there would not be one stone left , that it would be like a new plowed field there is a place like that close to the temple mount and more underground cisterns
Shalom--thank you for sharing. Yes, we heard about the claims/controversies on the location of the Temple and looked into it. The overwhelming evidence proves the Temple Mount to be Herod's Temple. The Mishna also verifies how the kohenim extracted water from the cisterns for daily service in the days of Herod.
Search - 'Locating Solomon's Temple' by Norma Robertson
Yes this is important, keep it up, discussing this topic!
Compleatly taken out of context. Tell me about the Roman baths under the mount. Do you think God would want them to use second best water to clean and purify the preists and sacrifice. Or pure running water or aka living water. Also another thing why would they build a temple outside the city walls so it would not be protected. One more thing I see missing the fires of 70 ad when the temple was burned. Evidence is seen in the city of David. I do not recall seeing any fire destruction on the mount.. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but evidence proves its self all in time. Just build the temple
yes more on locations. jesus loves you all!
Norma Robertson also argues that the true location of the temple can be found by following the water channels that Warren documented. She places the location, not under the Dome of the Rock, as do most traditionalists. Rather, she locates the temple but a bit southward, near the Al Aqsa Mosque. Yet, this location is still up on the temple mount platform and also corresponds to where the trumpeting stone fell. Thus, she also agrees the temple was not located down in the City of David.
The very first temple, and likely even the temple off Melchisadec, has been found. And it's directly adjacent to the Ghijon Spring. As it should be, because living water is required for the sacrifices and bathing. The mount has ZERO water supply. The mount was Fort Antonia, a 36 acre military compound.
Where is the Fort of Antonia?
Did Rome Destroy it's own Fort while leaving Stones upon each other at Temple Foundation?
Josephus wrote that even the Foundation Stones were Removed to extract molten Gold & Silver.
Again. Where is Fort of Antonia?
Thank you for debunking Robert Cornick’s story. He is quite the good storyteller.
I will be joining the Heartland Experience in November!
@@lindarieker1555 Looking forward to seeing you here in Israel!
Awesome!
Fascinating!
It just ptoves that the temple mount had water made available by man. God would provide the water which would not be contaminated by man made aquaducts.
I’d like to see more informative videos like this!
EXACTLY WHAT 'ISRAEL MY CHANNEL" HAS BEEN SAYING.THANKS
Yes please do more!
Please keep news about what is happening on the real temple mount front and center in your reports, thank you so much, you cover this like no one else.
I’d LOVE it if y’all did more episodes on this! 😆
why does the bible refer to the temple being on mount zion?