-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
G
I respectfully disagree. If they confirm, which I believe they already have but can't make public for obvious political reasons, that the original foundations are currently being uncovered in the city of David.... then roughly 20% of the temple is already there. If you know of any information that disputes these new "actual physical archaeological" findings then I'd like to see it, but please don't try to draw me into a philosophical debate based on unsubstantiated Jewish tradition.... I'm only interested in the current facts.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I am not real keen on anyone that identifies with the JEWISH CHRIST making racist ZIONISTS comments........
Now the flip side.....I watched a really good special a long time ago that placed the temple closer to the spring and not were MANY locate it as the amount of fresh water needed for cleansing and washing the blood away etc. was exceedingly great.......
Now the flip side.....I watched a really good special a long time ago that placed the temple closer to the spring and not were MANY locate it as the amount of fresh water needed for cleansing and washing the blood away etc. was exceedingly great.......
-
2
- Show all
When someone says they've made a controversial discovery, it's wise to at least look at other opinions.
I think there is quite a lot of evidence contradicting this view of the temple location.
I'm not an archaeologist... but it's probably best to see what different experts have to say.
.
I think there is quite a lot of evidence contradicting this view of the temple location.
I'm not an archaeologist... but it's probably best to see what different experts have to say.
.
-
1
- Show all
No it did not at all 
Jesus stated not stone would be left on top of another, therefore the wailing wall cannot be the wall of the Temple.
Jesus stated not stone would be left on top of another, therefore the wailing wall cannot be the wall of the Temple.
Matthew 24: (ESV)
1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.
2 But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
Luke 21: (ESV)
5 And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said,
6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not
be thrown down.”
The archeology of the Temple Mount base clearly reveals massive stones thrown down over the temple platform area.
Jesus was referring to the destruction of the Temple buildings with its surrounding porticos.
No it did not at all
Jesus stated not stone would be left on top of another, therefore the wailing wall cannot be the wall of the Temple.
Jesus stated not stone would be left on top of another, therefore the wailing wall cannot be the wall of the Temple.
Wailing Wall
I think the traditional answer to that point is that the wailing wall is only a retaining wall for the temple mount plateau, and not actually part of the temple.
Healthy Skepticism
If I were to entertain a little skepticism, I might wonder if a 30 minute documentary, with no rebuttal from those of opposing views, might be closer to an infomercial than a scientific presentation.
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong.
I'm just saying it may be wise to hear opposing views... and it is within the realm of possiblity that there are sound reasons for traditional archaeologists to all believe the temple was located on the temple mount.
Views:
Hey, I'm no archaeologist.
I just think we need to consider other views, and hear what the traditional experts have to say.
.
-
3
- Show all
No Water
The video said there was no water anywhere near the Temple Mount.
I know there is at least one huge cistern on the temple mount, along with large springs very close nearby, and possibly some aqueducts that may have brought water in from a different elevation. So having water on or near the temple mount wasn't a problem. No one has EVER thought water on the mount was a problem.
The contention that the temple had no water was a major keystone of the video... and that seems to be a non issue.
A bigger problem is... since there was plenty of water, and anyone visiting the temple mount could easily see the cistern and the springs nearby... why would the video claim there was no water?. It might give the impression there is some intentional misrepresentation of facts.
Fort Antonia Too Small
Another contention was that Fort Antonia was too small to hold an entire Roman legion.
As far as I can see, there isn't any reason to think the entire legion was garrisoned in that Fort.
The fort seems to be little more than a kind of "watch tower", and it probably wasn't needed for much more than that.
I'm sure there are plenty of historical records discussing how the troops were garrisoned throughout the area; Romans were quite meticulous.
Again, historians and archaeologists have never had any issue with the size of Fort Antonia.
That would suggest to me that, most likely, the Roman troops WERE spread around the area, and this was well documented, and nobody is concerned about it.
Keep in mind that Judea was a very difficult area to control with a very difficult population; they hated the romans, and they often had revolts and uprisings.
So it would make perfect sense to have the troops garrisoned in various key locations.
Anyway, that's just going off the top of my head, but it wouldn't be hard to do some googling and look it up.
That's it for today
It's not my goal in life to debunk Bob Cornuke.
I have no problem with the man.
He's probably a great guy.
However, we do know there was water on the mount, and the issue with Fort Antonia just seems like a non issue.
.
.
The video said there was no water anywhere near the Temple Mount.
I know there is at least one huge cistern on the temple mount, along with large springs very close nearby, and possibly some aqueducts that may have brought water in from a different elevation. So having water on or near the temple mount wasn't a problem. No one has EVER thought water on the mount was a problem.
The contention that the temple had no water was a major keystone of the video... and that seems to be a non issue.
A bigger problem is... since there was plenty of water, and anyone visiting the temple mount could easily see the cistern and the springs nearby... why would the video claim there was no water?. It might give the impression there is some intentional misrepresentation of facts.
Fort Antonia Too Small
Another contention was that Fort Antonia was too small to hold an entire Roman legion.
As far as I can see, there isn't any reason to think the entire legion was garrisoned in that Fort.
The fort seems to be little more than a kind of "watch tower", and it probably wasn't needed for much more than that.
I'm sure there are plenty of historical records discussing how the troops were garrisoned throughout the area; Romans were quite meticulous.
Again, historians and archaeologists have never had any issue with the size of Fort Antonia.
That would suggest to me that, most likely, the Roman troops WERE spread around the area, and this was well documented, and nobody is concerned about it.
Keep in mind that Judea was a very difficult area to control with a very difficult population; they hated the romans, and they often had revolts and uprisings.
So it would make perfect sense to have the troops garrisoned in various key locations.
Anyway, that's just going off the top of my head, but it wouldn't be hard to do some googling and look it up.
That's it for today
It's not my goal in life to debunk Bob Cornuke.
I have no problem with the man.
He's probably a great guy.
However, we do know there was water on the mount, and the issue with Fort Antonia just seems like a non issue.
.
.
-
1
- Show all