Spirituality
22 Nov 15
01 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by yoctobyteI have "The Works of Flavius Josephus" and Book 5, chapters 4 & 5 have nothing about the location of the temple or the temple mount.
Suzi, read this...
The Works of Flavius Josephus > War of the Jews > Book 5 > Chapter 4 & 5
biblestudytools.com
Excuse me I was looking in "The Antqities of the Jews" instead of "The Wars of the Jews'. Chapter 4 is a description of Jerusalem and chapter 5 is a description of the Temple.
01 Dec 15
Originally posted by yoctobyteNo, I meant to do it this past weekend but I forgot.
Michael Avi Yonh is the creator of the model of ancient Jerusalem which everybody has seen and was a professor at the Hebrew University.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Avi-Yonah
I forget the scale but it is very large.
http://www.123rf.com/photo_17163930_second-temple-model-of-the-ancient-jerusalem.html
His work was based on the works ...[text shortened]... ruth as to the history of Jerusalem.
The skeptics ask why? Have you watched the documentary?
I swear, I need to make lists or I'd forget my own head.
I'll get to it, a day or so.
01 Dec 15
Originally posted by yoctobyteI finally found this, and yes, it is describing the building and shaping of the Temple Mount and some of the buildings on it and the next chapter describes the Temple itself. Obviously, this is the second Temple.
Suzi, read this...
The Works of Flavius Josephus > War of the Jews > Book 5 > Chapter 4 & 5
biblestudytools.com
01 Dec 15
4 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneThe Works of Flavius Josephus > War of the Jews > Book 5 > Chapter 5.8
I finally found this, and yes, it is describing the building and shaping of the Temple Mount and some of the buildings on it and the next chapter describes the Temple itself. Obviously, this is the second Temple.
Notice that the tower of Antonio is connected to the temple by two passageways going down to the court of the temple. This is how the Roman legion could get down to the temple area quickly and it was higher than the temple so they could view the temple as we see from this paragraph by Josephus:
Now, as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of the 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. Etc., etc.
Then it goes on with the following:
The inward parts had the largeness of a palace... 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. 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 of 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.
So it appears to me that what is referred to as the temple mount today was taken over and controlled by the Romans so they could look over the city and the temple. So the temple was apparently in a lower area south of this so-called temple mount where the Dome of the Rock is located.
http://askelm.com/temple/t980504.htm
01 Dec 15
Where was the Antonia Fortress?
The Antonia Fortress was located to the north to protect the weaker north side of the city. (In fact, it was from the north that Titus Vespasian breached the walls in his famous attack in 70 C.E.)
According to ancient sources, the fortress was on a hill about 25 meters high. The current El Omriah school building is on a rock only 5 meters high. From many stratographic and other considerations it is doubted by some experts that this was the actual location of the Antonia Fortress. Tuvia Sagiv's papers discuss the critical issue of the actual location of the Fortress Antonia, which he believes was well to the south, perhaps at the location of the Dome of the Rock.
Traditional renderings show a deep, filled-in fosse (moat), north of the Temple Mount, lying south of the Antonia Fortress, between the fortress and the Temple Mount.
According to ancient sources, however, the Antonia Fortress and the Temple Mount were adjacent to each other. The moat should be to the north of the Tower for protection, placing the Antonia about where the Dome of the Rock stands today!
http://templemountlocation.com/fortAntonia.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonia_Fortress
01 Dec 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThank you.
I have "The Works of Flavius Josephus" and Book 5, chapters 4 & 5 have nothing about the location of the temple or the temple mount.
Excuse me I was looking in "The Antqities of the Jews" instead of "The Wars of the Jews'. Chapter 4 is a description of Jerusalem and chapter 5 is a description of the Temple.
02 Dec 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou're conflating two separate descriptions here. More later after I get home from work.
The Works of Flavius Josephus > War of the Jews > Book 5 > Chapter 5.8
Notice that the tower of Antonio is connected to the temple by two passageways going down to the court of the temple. This is how the Roman legion could get down to the temple area quickly and it was higher than the temple so they could view the temple as we see from this paragraph b ...[text shortened]... lled temple mount where the Dome of the Rock is located.
http://askelm.com/temple/t980504.htm
Originally posted by sonshipThat is 100% bullshyte. Your alleged deity has been supposedly coming soon for 2000 years. Why can't you just wake up and smell the coffee? This alleged deity has not come, is not coming soon, won't be coming in 20 THOUSAND years or 200 THOUSAND years.
Christ is soon coming.
Do not be too distracted with the things of the outward physical world. The far more vital signs are the signs WITHIN those watching and praying for Him to fulfill His will to come.
Israel, Jerusalem, hills, rocks, walls, signs in nature are all significant. But do not, I say, do not be distracted overmuch by these solel ...[text shortened]... rs. He is coming also from within.
He is coming also from within, from within, from WITHIN !
You delude yourself because you are besotted with Jesus. That is all well and good to have theoretical good role models but you take it too far, pretending he is coming and coming soon when the word 'soon' is not in the equation, clearly not after 2000 years.
You deceive yourself and you attempt to deceive others of the same tired story.
No doubt you will foist even more bible verses in your vain attempt to convince people I am wrong. So do your best. It won't be anything like good enough.
You will probably point to how bad things are now as 'sign of the end days' or some such rot.
So I guess things were not so bad 1000 years ago during the crusades? Lots of people killed then too. Why didn't your JC come back then? That must have looked like end days to a lot of people back then too.
Why didn't he come back in century 20? 100 million killed in wars and pogroms? Pretty good sign of end days I would think but here it is, century 21 and no sign of your Jesus.
Good luck with all that. You will die disappointed.
04 Dec 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Holy Bible indicates that 2000 years is like 2 days to God. So if Jesus comes on the third day then that is still soon to God. So we that believe in Jesus and the Holy Bible are not giving up hope.
That is 100% bullshyte. Your alleged deity has been supposedly coming soon for 2000 years. Why can't you just wake up and smell the coffee? This alleged deity has not come, is not coming soon, won't be coming in 20 THOUSAND years or 200 THOUSAND years.
You delude yourself because you are besotted with Jesus. That is all well and good to have theoretical ...[text shortened]... is, century 21 and no sign of your Jesus.
Good luck with all that. You will die disappointed.
The Shroud of Turin gives me proof that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day. Perhaps He will return on the third millennium, which would be like the third day to God, to resurrect His awaiting believers to everlasting life.
HalleluYaH !!!
Praise the LORD !!!
Holy! Holy! Holy!
05 Dec 15
Originally posted by SuzianneYeah, I know that for I worked for the U.S Postal Service for 23 years after my 20 year career in the military.
I know it seems like I'm ignoring the thread, but I promise I'll get back to this over the weekend. Christmas is our 'busy season' at the post office.
05 Dec 15
Originally posted by sonhouseBabies come into the world after a time in the womb, a time spent preparing them to live independently for a lifetime. Such as it is with the Kingdom of God. It happens when the time is right, and not one millisecond before.
That is 100% bullshyte. Your alleged deity has been supposedly coming soon for 2000 years. Why can't you just wake up and smell the coffee? This alleged deity has not come, is not coming soon, won't be coming in 20 THOUSAND years or 200 THOUSAND years.
You delude yourself because you are besotted with Jesus. That is all well and good to have theoretical ...[text shortened]... is, century 21 and no sign of your Jesus.
Good luck with all that. You will die disappointed.