The location where the Temple stood may have been located

[Lou Newton]

I do not agree with much of this video, or at least do not know if some things they claim are correct. BUT I do think they may be correct about the Temple that was destroyed by the Romans not being where the Dome of the Rock is located now. The Roman army destroyed all of Jerusalem, but I feel sure they would not have destroyed their own fort in Jerusalem. Also Jesus said, . “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” So I have always questioned if the wailing wall was part of the Temple.

What information do you have about this ?

[glen smith]

Have not watched this video but probably will. There are some who make a case for the temple being in the Old City of David just outside the ancient city of Jerusalem. I suppose those who hold this view are searching for away around the problem of the mosque on the temple mound. For the same reason, there are those who try to place the temple elsewhere on the mound – so the temple can be rebuilt without removing the mosque.

Those who hold this second view have failed to understand divine goodness as expressed in His holiness. Divine holiness is the ultimate good, but too close to this good or holiness (life) when there is uncleanness, sin, or an abomination near or in his presence results in death. It is inconceivable to my understanding of divine holiness that the temple could have ever shared the mound with a divinely sanctioned temple. Of course, during the reign of many of the Kings of Judah this was the case with the Canaanite gods – altars and idols on the temple mound and in the temple. Obviously, the temple could not have been the representative place of the divine dwelling.

David’s city did not experience much archeological investigation until into the second half of the 20^th century. Same for the lower parts of the temple mound after the 1967 war. My only interest is archeological since for me the rebuilding of the temple and reconstituting animal sacrifice would be in opposition to Christ as the final sacrifice. Such a rebuilding would be the worse offense to God since the cross and the ultimate expression of Jewish rejection of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.

Believers should remember that the veil was ripped by the Lord from top to bottom when Christ died on the cross, thereby, opening the way for man to enter His Holy Presence without animal sacrifice or a priest. Therefore, how could a rebuilt temple be in the plan of God. A fter the priest repaired the veil and continued sacrifice the temple was razed to the level of the mound just as prophesied by Christ in Mark 13, Luke 21, and Matthew 24. (A.D.70 by the Romans)

[Lou Newton]

Hi Glen. I agree it is hard to believe that The Lord would allow the Jews to rebuild the Temple. The Lord sent the Romans to destroy the Temple to stop the Jews from insulting The Blood of Jesus by sacrificing mere animals for sin.

My questions are these:

1 - How do we know that what many believe today to be the Temple mound, is not the mound left by the Roman fort. That mound seems very large for a Temple, but about the right size for a Roman fort.

2 - Did not David buy a threshing floor for a place to build the Temple ? Would not a threshing floor be smooth. The rock in the Dome of the rock does not look like a threshing floor. It is not smooth at all.

3 - It would seem that the Temple was in the old city of David or just outside of it.

4 - Some are claiming that the Temple has to be rebuilt before Jesus returns. What is the evidence they make this claim on ?

[glen smith]

Hi Glen. I agree it is hard to believe that The Lord would allow the Jews to rebuild the Temple. The Lord sent the Romans to destroy the Temple to stop the Jews from insulting The Blood of Jesus by sacrificing mere animals for sin.

My questions are these:

1 - How do we know that what many believe today to be the Temple mound, is not the mound left by the Roman fort. That mound seems very large for a Temple, but about the right size for a Roman fort.

2 - Did not David buy a threshing floor for a place to build the Temple ? Would not a threshing floor be smooth. The rock in the Dome of the rock does not look like a threshing floor. It is not smooth at all.

3 - It would seem that the Temple was in the old city of David or just outside of it.

4 - Some are claiming that the Temple has to be rebuilt before Jesus returns. What is the evidence they make this claim on ?

I have since watched the video. I have watched another video making all the same points. To be honest, those opposing this view have excellent arguments. I will look this up and post them. A couple are from the Bible are very compelling.

Here and now I will address the threshing floor. A threshing floor was a large rock upon which the long stems with heads of grain could be struck (threshed). The seeds and chaff would separate from the stalks with seed heads and chaff falling upon the rock. Once a large number of seeds were on the floor the workers would winnow the seeds and chaff. This was a process of shoveling up the seeds and chaff to toss them into the wind. So a high place was preferred because there would be more wind. The chaff would be blown away by the wind and the heavier seeds would fall to the rock. Modern combines use blowers to perform the same task. Once the grain was winnowed several times it was swept up and placed in baskets for grinding. Now, the question. Which would be the most beneficial between a high place with lots of wind or a lower place with a smooth rock? Winnowing is a necessity. Sweeping a smooth rock would be an added luxury.

A second point. Jewish tradition has Abraham offering Isaac upon this same rock (Genesis 22). So, which rock would Abraham have chosen as the altar - the highest one (3800 ft. above sea level) or a significantly lower one (3400 ft above sea level.) 600 feet (or is it yards) to the south?

I have read that argument with the Gihon spring does not work either.
The acreage size seems to be a problem.

[glen smith]

Roman garrison location

1 - How do we know that what many believe today to be the Temple mound, is not the mound left by the Roman fort. That mound seems very large for a Temple, but about the right size for a Roman fort.

We don’t.. . but . . .

The temple mount is 36 acres. If perfectly square each side would be about 1,220 feet or 408 yards. This is short of a quarter mile square by about 6 acres.

During the early empire (27 BC – AD 200) each legion consisted of 5,120 legionaries usually supported by an equal number of auxiliary troops, the total force available to a legion commander during the Pax Romana probably ranged from 11,000 downwards, with the more prestigious legions and those stationed on hostile borders or in restive provinces (as in Judea) tending to have more auxiliaries. Some legions may have even been reinforced at times with units making the associated force near 15,000–16,000 or about the size of a modern division.

If all 5,120+ soldiers of an Imperial Roman legion were garrisoned in one place the temple mound size would be needed and maybe something even larger. In addition to the 5,120 soldiers there would be about 3000 support personnel = 8,120. Judea being a restive country to the occupation probably had a larger legion which could not have been garrisoned on 36 acres.

The Imperial Roman legion was composed of the first cohort of 800 men and nine other cohorts of about 480 men each. A cohort was made up of six centuries. The centurions were the officers over each of the centuries. Depending upon the cohort the centurion could be in modern terms anything from a junior grade officer to a captain.

From what is in the Bible the cities where the centurions are garrisoned seem to be throughout Judea and not just Jerusalem. It does not seem tactically practically for the occupying force in a rebellious territory to station all its force in a centralized location. The daily presence of the soldiers was required throughout the territory to demonstrate control and to require submission.

Antonia Fortress is joined to the perimeter wall of the Temple. Each corner had a tower some 73 feet above the wall. If the temple mount was the garrison for 10,000 plus soldiers why would there have been these towers on the Antonia Fortress?

It seems anyone contemplating that placing a Roman legion in a central location to control and occupy a large territory would not have any knowledge of the tactical demands and logistics of an occupying army.

[Lou Newton]

I have since watched the video. I have watched another video making all the same points. To be honest, those opposing this view have excellent arguments. I will look this up and post them. A couple are from the Bible are very compelling.

Here and now I will address the threshing floor. A threshing floor was a large rock upon which the long stems with heads of grain could be struck (threshed). The seeds and chaff would separate from the stalks with seed heads and chaff falling upon the rock. Once a large number of seeds were on the floor the workers would winnow the seeds and chaff. This was a process of shoveling up the seeds and chaff to toss them into the wind. So a high place was preferred because there would be more wind. The chaff would be blown away by the wind and the heavier seeds would fall to the rock. Modern combines use blowers to perform the same task. Once the grain was winnowed several times it was swept up and placed in baskets for grinding. Now, the question. Which would be the most beneficial between a high place with lots of wind or a lower place with a smooth rock? Winnowing is a necessity. Sweeping a smooth rock would be an added luxury.

A second point. Jewish tradition has Abraham offering Isaac upon this same rock (Genesis 22). So, which rock would Abraham have chosen as the altar - the highest one (3800 ft. above sea level) or a significantly lower one (3400 ft above sea level.) 600 feet (or is it yards) to the south?

I have read that argument with the Gihon spring does not work either.
The acreage size seems to be a problem.

I agree that these arguments are very strong.

[glen smith]

The Third Temple

The last of Lou's questions concerned the third temple.
"4 - Some are claiming that the Temple has to be rebuilt before Jesus returns. What is the evidence they make this claim on ?"

There are no biblical facts predicting a third temple.
No place in the Bible does it state there will be a third temple.

However, Lou ask what was the evidence - evidence being the interpretation of facts.
The simplest answer is that the premillennial dispensationalist propose a third temple during the tribulation so there will occur the abomination of desolation spoken of in Daniel 9:27 NASB -
"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

Additionally, the premillennial dispensationalist employ one of their gap hypothesis between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9. This proposed gap begins with the death of Christ and ends with the start of "The Great Tribulation" - the 70th week. Just as with the third temple being a necessity to allow a future abomination of desolation, this gap now going on 1,987 years is a necessity for the possible future of "The Great Tribulation." There is no suggestion or indication of a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9 in Daniel 9 or any place else in the Bible.

Both the third temple and the gap hypothesis between the 69th and 70th are ideas imported to the Bible because of the necessity to fit a preconceived unbiblical views.

Because premillennial dispensationalism dominates American evangelicals (Both GW Bush & RR were premillennial dispensationalist) it is required that every serious Bible student to be familiar with what this view teaches. Accordingly, a topic will be created under END TIMES to explain premillennial dispensationalism.

[Lou Newton]

Thanks Glen. I agree with most of what you said. I do not think The Lord would allow a third Temple to be built. He destroyed the Temple in 70 AD to keep the Jews from insulting the blood of Christ, by mere animals. Why would He allow them to do the same in these days.

[glen smith]

Thanks Glen. I agree with most of what you said. I do not think The Lord would allow a third Temple to be built. He destroyed the Temple in 70 AD to keep the Jews from insulting the blood of Christ, by mere animals. Why would He allow them to do the same in these days.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou, your point is the essence of the issue. The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus is the final and ultimate sacrifice of the LORD"s plan of redemption. Any . . . any . . . any claim that there is another way or dispensation for those who rejected the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus for the forgiveness of sins is the ultimate blasphemy - the unforgivable sin. But most premillenial dispenationalist do not see it this way.

However, However, however, however, the reason I posted the distinctives of premillenial dispenationalism is because I do not think most of those who affirm elements of this view understand the implications of the doctrine. Many of these marginal premillenial dispenationalist have heard the urgency to evangelize because the Second Coming is upon us and have gone to fulfill the great commission. This is the explanation of why the doctrine has over taken evangelical Christianity and not because it is biblical. I love their urgency to proclaim.

I have friends, missionaries, and family who are marginal premillenial dispenationalist but do not comprehend or even know the implications of this doctrine. They refuse to listen to the biblical truth. But after all, salvation is about the relationship with God and not our being sinless, or being right, or having the right doctrine. So much do I wish to shout from the roof tops that our differences are about us and not about God. The divisiveness of the Church is for me a great sorrow and pain - it is of the flesh and satan.

All of my forum arguments are not so much about me being right as it is about desiring that we all agree and fellowship with one another for the sake of the gospel and the unity of the Church. I see that many are leaving Protestantism to become Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Orthodox for this very reason - to get away from the divisiveness of Protestantism - a movement based upon rebellion rather than submission.

The issue remains. How do we in good conscious submit to what we see as biblical error? Often I wish to be ignorant.

I have chosen to worship and submit in the congregation which is the least objectionable - but seems for most members a dead faith. But what do I know of wheat and tears? Oh . . ,. oh . . . oh . . . for the flame of the Holy Ghost!

Have you ever read the novel for teenagers "In His Steps"?

[Lou Newton]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou, your point is the essence of the issue. The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus is the final and ultimate sacrifice of the LORD"s plan of redemption. Any . . . any . . . any claim that there is another way or dispensation for those who rejected the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus for the forgiveness of sins is the ultimate blasphemy - the unforgivable sin. But most premillenial dispenationalist do not see it this way.

However, However, however, however, the reason I posted the distinctives of premillenial dispenationalism is because I do not think most of those who affirm elements of this view understand the implications of the doctrine. Many of these marginal premillenial dispenationalist have heard the urgency to evangelize because the Second Coming is upon us and have gone to fulfill the great commission. This is the explanation of why the doctrine has over taken evangelical Christianity and not because it is biblical. I love their urgency to proclaim.

I have friends, missionaries, and family who are marginal premillenial dispenationalist but do not comprehend or even know the implications of this doctrine. They refuse to listen to the biblical truth. But after all, salvation is about the relationship with God and not our being sinless, or being right, or having the right doctrine. So much do I wish to shout from the roof tops that our differences are about us and not about God. The divisiveness of the Church is for me a great sorrow and pain - it is of the flesh and satan.

All of my forum arguments are not so much about me being right as it is about desiring that we all agree and fellowship with one another for the sake of the gospel and the unity of the Church. I see that many are leaving Protestantism to become Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Orthodox for this very reason - to get away from the divisiveness of Protestantism - a movement based upon rebellion rather than submission.

The issue remains. How do we in good conscious submit to what we see as biblical error? Often I wish to be ignorant.

I have chosen to worship and submit in the congregation which is the least objectionable - but seems for most members a dead faith. But what do I know of wheat and tears? Oh . . ,. oh . . . oh . . . for the flame of the Holy Ghost!

Have you ever read the novel for teenagers "In His Steps"?

I have never read it. Most of my reading has been the Holy Scriptures. I have read some of the classics.

[redsoxmaloney]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou, your point is the essence of the issue. The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus is the final and ultimate sacrifice of the LORD"s plan of redemption. Any . . . any . . . any claim that there is another way or dispensation for those who rejected the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus for the forgiveness of sins is the ultimate blasphemy - the unforgivable sin. But most premillenial dispenationalist do not see it this way.

However, However, however, however, the reason I posted the distinctives of premillenial dispenationalism is because I do not think most of those who affirm elements of this view understand the implications of the doctrine. Many of these marginal premillenial dispenationalist have heard the urgency to evangelize because the Second Coming is upon us and have gone to fulfill the great commission. This is the explanation of why the doctrine has over taken evangelical Christianity and not because it is biblical. I love their urgency to proclaim.

I have friends, missionaries, and family who are marginal premillenial dispenationalist but do not comprehend or even know the implications of this doctrine. They refuse to listen to the biblical truth. But after all, salvation is about the relationship with God and not our being sinless, or being right, or having the right doctrine. So much do I wish to shout from the roof tops that our differences are about us and not about God. The divisiveness of the Church is for me a great sorrow and pain - it is of the flesh and satan.

All of my forum arguments are not so much about me being right as it is about desiring that we all agree and fellowship with one another for the sake of the gospel and the unity of the Church. I see that many are leaving Protestantism to become Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Orthodox for this very reason - to get away from the divisiveness of Protestantism - a movement based upon rebellion rather than submission.

The issue remains. How do we in good conscious submit to what we see as biblical error? Often I wish to be ignorant.

I have chosen to worship and submit in the congregation which is the least objectionable - but seems for most members a dead faith. But what do I know of wheat and tears? Oh . . ,. oh . . . oh . . . for the flame of the Holy Ghost!

Have you ever read the novel for teenagers "In His Steps"?

I really like this post Glenn. It isn't about us being right, but our relationship with Jesus, and being able to recognize him. My wife struggles badly with us trying to find a church that's reasonable, but the problem is that she won't find one. How many do you know that profess to be weak and ineffective? Or poor? That's the whole issue. Then the other you mentioned, most people have no idea what the doctrine of their church teaches, or its implications. Very sad indeed.

[Lou Newton]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou, your point is the essence of the issue. The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus is the final and ultimate sacrifice of the LORD"s plan of redemption. Any . . . any . . . any claim that there is another way or dispensation for those who rejected the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus for the forgiveness of sins is the ultimate blasphemy - the unforgivable sin. But most premillenial dispenationalist do not see it this way.

However, However, however, however, the reason I posted the distinctives of premillenial dispenationalism is because I do not think most of those who affirm elements of this view understand the implications of the doctrine. Many of these marginal premillenial dispenationalist have heard the urgency to evangelize because the Second Coming is upon us and have gone to fulfill the great commission. This is the explanation of why the doctrine has over taken evangelical Christianity and not because it is biblical. I love their urgency to proclaim.

I have friends, missionaries, and family who are marginal premillenial dispenationalist but do not comprehend or even know the implications of this doctrine. They refuse to listen to the biblical truth. But after all, salvation is about the relationship with God and not our being sinless, or being right, or having the right doctrine. So much do I wish to shout from the roof tops that our differences are about us and not about God. The divisiveness of the Church is for me a great sorrow and pain - it is of the flesh and satan.

All of my forum arguments are not so much about me being right as it is about desiring that we all agree and fellowship with one another for the sake of the gospel and the unity of the Church. I see that many are leaving Protestantism to become Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Orthodox for this very reason - to get away from the divisiveness of Protestantism - a movement based upon rebellion rather than submission.

The issue remains. How do we in good conscious submit to what we see as biblical error? Often I wish to be ignorant.

I have chosen to worship and submit in the congregation which is the least objectionable - but seems for most members a dead faith. But what do I know of wheat and tears? Oh . . ,. oh . . . oh . . . for the flame of the Holy Ghost!

Have you ever read the novel for teenagers "In His Steps"?

Hi Glen,

You wrote:

I see that many are leaving Protestantism to become Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Orthodox for this very reason - to get away from the divisiveness of Protestantism - a movement based upon rebellion rather than submission.

This statement I highlighted in red may be true for many who left the RCC. The King of England sure seemed to be in rebellion to the pope, rather that submission to Christ when he left the RCC.

But I do not think that is true for many pious people who left the RCC, not to rebel, but to submit to Christ rather than mere men.

Would you agree ?

[glen smith]

It is beyond my commiseration how a biblically and historically knowledgeable person could remain in the RCC or convert to the RCC, but they do based upon their own hierarchy of values.

The Church of England is by some labeled a protestant denomination because of King Edward VIII separated from RCC, but the King's protest was not specifically over doctrinal differences but the King's desire to divorce. The official issue between the Church of England and RCC is about who is the head of the Church.

Th Protestant Reformation was not a cohesive departure from RCC. The more notable figures, like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli rebelled over the submitting to the scripture authority rather than the RCC. Then, there were many other groups like the Anabaptist who had been an underground movement for centuries that loosely allied with the more powerful leaders to effect their own establishment. However, Zwingli executed 40,000 Anabaptist.

Attributing motivation to follow Christ to the major reformers might not be judged by modern followers as legitimate. Considering human nature the reformers might have been motivated by wanting to be right in the face of the corrupt RCC. This same human nature can be observed today in the divisiveness of Protestants and on internet forums - just making a statement advertising they are right.

[glen smith]

I really like this post Glenn. It isn't about us being right, but our relationship with Jesus, and being able to recognize him. My wife struggles badly with us trying to find a church that's reasonable, but the problem is that she won't find one. How many do you know that profess to be weak and ineffective? Or poor? That's the whole issue. Then the other you mentioned, most people have no idea what the doctrine of their church teaches, or its implications. Very sad indeed.

Yes, your wife has my sympathy.
Forget whose minister, or the denomination, or the doctrines.
Find a congregation with the people and programs that allow you to minister.
Keep your conflicting doctrines to yourself.
Accept the responsibility for your own worship experience.

Your service is about following the Lord Jesus and not yourself or your own beliefs.

[Lou Newton]

It is beyond my commiseration how a biblically and historically knowledgeable person could remain in the RCC or convert to the RCC, but they do based upon their own hierarchy of values.

The Church of England is by some labeled a protestant denomination because of King Edward VIII separated from RCC, but the King's protest was not specifically over doctrinal differences but the King's desire to divorce. The official issue between the Church of England and RCC is about who is the head of the Church.

Th Protestant Reformation was not a cohesive departure from RCC. The more notable figures, like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli rebelled over the submitting to the scripture authority rather than the RCC. Then, there were many other groups like the Anabaptist who had been an underground movement for centuries that loosely allied with the more powerful leaders to effect their own establishment. However, Zwingli executed 40,000 Anabaptist.

Attributing motivation to follow Christ to the major reformers might not be judged by modern followers as legitimate. Considering human nature the reformers might have been motivated by wanting to be right in the face of the corrupt RCC. This same human nature can be observed today in the divisiveness of Protestants and on internet forums - just making a statement advertising they are right.

These are also good points Glen. But I still think there were some that were not in rebellion, but simply wanted to submit to Christ rather than men. You are probably correct that the organized church has always been led by many men who were more concerned about justifying themselves, rather than submitting to Christ.