And it doesn't stop there. The so-called temple mount (Haram Al-Sharif) is not or never was the place where the Temple of Solomon and the subsequent Temple of Herod was located. This site is the ruins of the Roman Fortress Antonia. The temple mount (Haram) is located on the highest position in the region. There's not a single record of Solomon's Temple to be built on a high place. Albeit, it is common practice for the military to build fortresses on high ground. Like all major fortresses Josephus describes Fort Antonia as being built over a "rock" the highest point of the area. No Biblical description of the Temple includes such a feature. In addition, the Temple Mount is not located in the city, but outside of it. The Temple was said to be the center of Jerusalem. King Solomon built the Temple on the site of the threshing floor of Araunah which was IN the City of David. The Haram never was. Everything about this location is wrong. The dimensions are impossibly wrong.
(400) This hill was walled all round, and in compass four furlongs, [the distance of] each angle containing in length a furlong:
Josephus Antiquities Book 15, Chapter 11.
(411) but the fourth front of the temple, which was southward, had indeed itself gates in its middle, as also it had the royal cloisters, with three walks, which reached in length from the east valley unto that on the west, for it was impossible it should reach any farther;
Josephus Antiquities Book 15, Chapter 11.
These two quote from Josephus are probably two of the most important when it comes to defining exactly where the Temple stood. A furlong or a stade was about 606ft in length.
The Southern Wall of the Temple Mount (The Haram) where the Royal Porch was supposedly situated does reach from valley to valley. The problem is to do that it has to be at least 922ft in length. Hence what Josephus was describing could not have been the Haram Al-Sharif as we know it today. One of the major problems with his placing the Temple in the position mentioned is that the Southern Wall does not and cannot go from valley to valley.
That Temple Mount which is the very large oblong area dominating the site is surrounded by literally thousands of original Herodian era blocks of stone. But the gospels state and Josephus explicitly records (as an eye-witness) that NO block of stone was left of the Temple after the Roman assault.
The Romans raided Jerusalem under General Vesparian and subdued it. Four years later, the Emperor Titus had the temple disassembled and every stone was removed. Several sources (Roman, Greek, and Jewish, etc.) record that the Romans completely erased the Temple from its existence where "No stone was left un-turned". The Romans destroyed and carried away every last piece of the Temple in AD 70. The "Wailing Wall" in the early literature including the Talmud refers to the western wall of the Temple itself. Nobody believes that the wall described today is anything other than the outer wall of a Herodian era structure.
In 2000 years of research, excavation and exploration including a protracted search by the Templars, not ONE single artifact from the Temple of Jerusalem has ever been found. Even the inscription found at Hezikiah's tunnel far from the alleged temple mount gives proof that the Haram is NOT the site. The overwhelming evidence continues to prove the Dome of the Rock location is NOT the location where Solomon's temple once existed. Yet, the Temple mount will continue to be the site of the proposed 3rd temple.
From any tactical and geographical consideration the original Temple of Solomon would never have been built in an exposed northern "suburb". It must rather have been built in the Center of the City of David which by coincidence is right beside the Gihon Spring. For religious and practical reasons (due to the vast amount of animal sacrifices taking place) it was necessary to build the Temple near fresh running water. There is none on the Haram and only the Gihon Spring was such a source at the time of King David and King Solomon.
Fort Antonia was described by Josephus as being like a city with large areas for troop parades etc. A legion of troops (5000 fighting and 5000 support) was housed there. Only the Haram fits the description and the small area now designated the site of the Fort would have been impossibly small.
And it doesn't stop there. The so-called temple mount (Haram Al-Sharif) is not or never was the place where the Temple of Solomon and the subsequent Temple of Herod was located. This site is the ruins of the Roman Fortress Antonia. The temple mount (Haram) is located on the highest position in the region. There's not a single record of Solomon's Temple to be built on a high place. Albeit, it is common practice for the military to build fortresses on high ground. Like all major fortresses Josephus describes Fort Antonia as being built over a "rock" the highest point of the area. No Biblical description of the Temple includes such a feature. In addition, the Temple Mount is not located in the city, but outside of it. The Temple was said to be the center of Jerusalem. King Solomon built the Temple on the site of the threshing floor of Araunah which was IN the City of David. The Haram never was. Everything about this location is wrong. The dimensions are impossibly wrong.
(400) This hill was walled all round, and in compass four furlongs, [the distance of] each angle containing in length a furlong:
(411) but the fourth front of the temple, which was southward, had indeed itself gates in its middle, as also it had the royal cloisters, with three walks, which reached in length from the east valley unto that on the west, for it was impossible it should reach any farther;
These two quote from Josephus are probably two of the most important when it comes to defining exactly where the Temple stood. A furlong or a stade was about 606ft in length.
The Southern Wall of the Temple Mount (The Haram) where the Royal Porch was supposedly situated does reach from valley to valley. The problem is to do that it has to be at least 922ft in length. Hence what Josephus was describing could not have been the Haram Al-Sharif as we know it today. One of the major problems with his placing the Temple in the position mentioned is that the Southern Wall does not and cannot go from valley to valley.
That Temple Mount which is the very large oblong area dominating the site is surrounded by literally thousands of original Herodian era blocks of stone. But the gospels state and Josephus explicitly records (as an eye-witness) that NO block of stone was left of the Temple after the Roman assault.
The Romans raided Jerusalem under General Vesparian and subdued it. Four years later, the Emperor Titus had the temple disassembled and every stone was removed. Several sources (Roman, Greek, and Jewish, etc.) record that the Romans completely erased the Temple from its existence where "No stone was left un-turned". The Romans destroyed and carried away every last piece of the Temple in AD 70. The "Wailing Wall" in the early literature including the Talmud refers to the western wall of the Temple itself. Nobody believes that the wall described today is anything other than the outer wall of a Herodian era structure.
In 2000 years of research, excavation and exploration including a protracted search by the Templars, not ONE single artifact from the Temple of Jerusalem has ever been found. Even the inscription found at Hezikiah's tunnel far from the alleged temple mount gives proof that the Haram is NOT the site. The overwhelming evidence continues to prove the Dome of the Rock location is NOT the location where Solomon's temple once existed. Yet, the Temple mount will continue to be the site of the proposed 3rd temple.
From any tactical and geographical consideration the original Temple of Solomon would never have been built in an exposed northern "suburb". It must rather have been built in the Center of the City of David which by coincidence is right beside the Gihon Spring. For religious and practical reasons (due to the vast amount of animal sacrifices taking place) it was necessary to build the Temple near fresh running water. There is none on the Haram and only the Gihon Spring was such a source at the time of King David and King Solomon.
Fort Antonia was described by Josephus as being like a city with large areas for troop parades etc. A legion of troops (5000 fighting and 5000 support) was housed there. Only the Haram fits the description and the small area now designated the site of the Fort would have been impossibly small.