Archaeologists discover 2nd Temple seal in JERUSALEM

Originally posted by JadeMountain

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

. Don't equate this to putting a flag on the moon, it has nothing to do with territory, it has to do with what people consider sacred. To muslim that spot is nothing but a thumb in the eye of the jews. In islam whenever they conquer a territory they stick a mosque on the conquered people's holiest spot to piss them off, as a sign of them being conquered.

You just go round in circles.
A flag on the moon is the same as a mosque on a conquered spot.
Both a claim to have achieved something

I am saying to jews that spot is more than just about territory to jews and you keep misunderstanding.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Jerusalem was never a Philistine city. It is believe to have been built by Shem. The Philistines settled in Gaza and they were what was called the "Sea Peoples" which were an amalgamation of Cretians and other island peoples displaced from the Santorini Volcano eruption around 1450 B.C. right around the time of the Exodus when the Minoan civilization of Knossus was destroyed so no, the Philistines didn't really have much to do with Jerusalem other than it was a territory they wanted to conquer. If the Palestinians are trying to play that card then they need to move back to Crete where they came from because the Philistines were actually Minoans and Dagon the fishgod was one of the Minoan gods, just like the Philistines.

edit on 2-8-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

Precisely!

There is also some evidence that the Spartans intermarried with the Hebrew tribe of Dan. That would possibly explain odd references to "their father Abraham".

edit on 2/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

That could explain why Israel would ally with Greece when Greece is bankrupt. Familial ties would be of concern.

Thank you. See Rashi's commentary. That's as best as it will be explained.

reply to post by Extralien

Many do. Waiting for the right time. Perhaps at Zero Hour.

Originally posted by cloudwatcher
reply to post by rootbranch2012

 

This is not debatable. It is just a matter of time till the Ark of the Covenant is also found there. Then all the world will know.

It is no little secret that The Temple Institute believes they know exactly where it's at.

The Temple Institute

They have everything ready for service in the next temple. Only the Ark remains...and of course the Temple itself. But that will all be worked out...won't it!??

You state that as some kind of factoid. But you actually don't know anything about what God promised or didn't promised. So is that a very off-hand way of ASKING - WHERE DID GOD ALMIGHTY PROMISE THE LAND OF ISRAEL to the JEWISH PEOPLE?

If you ask, you'll receive a reply.

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by rootbranch2012

 

Well, of course. Nobody wants to see their illusions crumble before their eyes. Every single time *proof* is provided of God giving the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, another DNA strand of Israel's haters collapses. Weakening, weakening, weakening - till the roles are reversed. The haters become the dust, and the bones of the righteous dead literally are reborn. Yechezkel - Ezekiel - Chapter 37 it's all been prophesied.

That's just it the Jews have nothing written by God stating this land belongs to them. All they have are things that were written by man. God isn't a real estate agent.

This topic has nothing to do with this thread. Please desist from derailing.
DERAILING A THREAD - FAQ

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by jazzguy

 

I heard that, friend. Check this out:
Best of friends? CIA considers Israel one of its biggest spy threats
I do not trust anything that come from there.

The only ones fighting are the Palestenians.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
One little problem is the "temple mount" area of today was the "Fort Atonia" in the times of Jesus, which means the temple was well South of the Mosque there today. There was about 600 ft between Ft. Antonia and the real temple site.

Fighting over that area is a worthless games, and since it isn't the most sacret spot, the Muslem's rears are not pointed at the temple's actual zone.


So much Malarkey. One little seal doesn't show the temple was on this Fort Antonia area.


The real history, if one digs it out, tells the Temple was just North of David's palace area. And that wasn't this Ft. Antonia compound, of the Romans, that was not destroyed looking for gold in the temple's ruins.

This rock thing is an embellishment of recent times that is all about tossing mud on the Muslums. If anyone were serious on the new temple and the acutual site, there is road, a parking lot, and a few buildings there now. One can easily put a 3rd temple in the parking lot.

The real history tells the temple's area was about 1/5 the size of Ft. Antonia, and all this is a scam to try to get a bigger area for some new temple that never historically existed there and is prevented from existing there because the religion rules tell that no area for the temple could be used for a previous religious area. And the Ft. Antonia had the temple to Jupiter by the Romans and the Islamic 2 buildings, making the whole area not eligible for the 3rd temple's area.

This is why David bought a threshing field, as there was not any religion title to it before, and the temple would be placed there. A threshing field isn't the Dome of the Rock's rock.

Only way to make it work is go back to the orginal area North of Ir David and South of Ft. Antonia and the mosque there now.

That area is the historic spot for the temple, and no where else.

It appears Jerusalem's Jewish war with the Muslims would even corrupt their own history for the area. The Muslims and their temple are not going anywhere, so get over it, and put the temple zone in its correct geographical area.

So much nonsense in Jerusalem that they don't even have a real clue on god, nor the temple's real site.

edit on 1-8-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Seals can be found almost anywhere in that area, and Ft. Antonia can't become a temple site.

Originally posted by rootbranch2012
The only ones fighting are the Palestenians.

I think we all know the history for Palestine, and how Israel came into being.

Bombing the King David Hotel, blood baths to run off the Arabs.


You have your Zionist blame game showing again.

Before Israel came along, all the Jewish and the Islam got along fine there.

Only due to the push for the cure for the Holocaust issues did Israel come into being and too much of the Lion of Judah is showing, when the Lion needs to learn to lie down with the Sheep.

Under Abraham, the Palestine Arabs and the Jewish are brothers, so each side start talking that way, as you can't ever divorce your grandfathers.

Seek knowledge and truth, not eternal name calling and slaps at your brothers. Most also read the Talmud on what they think of non-Jewish, and have read the Islam Infidel issues. Those are divisions that end, when the persuits are honest truth from both sides.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

No, the temple and holy of holies was directly behind the Eastern Gate of the temple mount and could be seen from a stander-by on the Mt. of Olives. There are 50 ton foundation stones under the mount from Solomon's temple.

Nonsense, that isn't what the history for the area tells. The original temple mount does not exist anymore because it was torn down to the dirt under the foundations.

And your claim goes against the Jesus prophecy even, which means you don't value the Jesus prophecy.

You better double-check Josephus. One could stand on the Mt. of Olives on Yom Kippur and see directly into the holy of holies to the ark of the covenant through the open Eastern gate. And Jesus's prophecy was fulfilled literally. Not one stone of the TEMPLE was left on another stone. The Romans toppled the temple to get the gold that had melted and run into the cracks. The thrown down temple stones are still outside the temple mount where the landed in 70 AD and the 50 ton formation stones from Solomon's temple under the mount.

Perhaps it is time you read Josephus in War Volumn V:

www.earlyjewishwritings.com...

But the other hill, which was called "Acra," and sustains the lower city, is of the shape of a moon when she is horned; over against this there was a third hill, but naturally lower than Acra, and parted formerly from the other by a broad valley.

----------

And when they had built walls on three sides of the temple round about, from the bottom of the hill, and had performed a work that was greater than could be hoped for, (in which work long ages were spent by them, as well as all their sacred treasures were exhausted, which were still replenished by those tributes which were sent to God from the whole habitable earth,) they then encompassed their upper courts with cloisters, as well as they [afterward] did the lowest [court of the] temple. The lowest part of this was erected to the height of three hundred cubits, and in some places more; yet did not the entire depth of the foundations appear, for they brought earth, and filled up the valleys, as being desirous to make them on a level with the narrow streets of the city; wherein they made use of stones of forty cubits in magnitude; for the great plenty of money they then had, and the liberality of the people, made this attempt of theirs to succeed to an incredible degree; and what could not be so much as hoped for as ever to be accomplished, was, by perseverance and length of time, brought to perfection.

Now a Roman Cubit is about 1.6 ft., which means this 300 cubit wall is 450 ft tall that goes well down the side of the ridge and into the valley.

Thus, one finds a great big problem with putting Solomon's temple anywhere but near the edge of the ridge on its East side and that standing high over the Gihon Springs area.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


No need to link his works, I can walk across the room to the bookshelf. Read the transcript of an interview wi5h the great Dr. James Fleming:

HERE.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

Under Abraham, the Palestine Arabs and the Jewish are brothers, so each side start talking that way, as you can't ever divorce your grandfathers.

You must have forgot to read the part where Ishmael was to always be in his brothers' faces. Then his decendants the Ishmaelites (Arabs) come, same deal. Skip to present day and this is what you got.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Under Abraham, the Palestine Arabs and the Jewish are brothers, so each side start talking that way, as you can't ever divorce your grandfathers.

You must have forgot to read the part where Ishmael was to always be in his brothers' faces. Then his decendants the Ishmaelites (Arabs) come, same deal. Skip to present day and this is what you got.

And they are half-brothers to be precise.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

No need to link his works, I can walk across the room to the bookshelf. Read the transcript of an interview wi5h the great Dr. James Fleming:

HERE.

ME thinks you didn't read Jesephus very well, across the room must have been too much for you to muster.

But, others read and even compiled Jesephus, and one can see that the temple was built up over the valley floor and no gates were in the way for viewing anything from Mount of Olives, and one could look right into the Holy Curtain at the back of the temple.


This fella does a real good job of web page making to help folks see the eye-witness account:

www.biblemysteries.com...


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.

Jesephus leaves little doubt that folks could look right into the Soloman's temple from the Mt of Olives. Plus, he details the Ft. Antonia that had walls so tall that it looked like a tower due to the height. The current walls are like 60 ft off the ground level and they are 60 ft below ground level, so the front of Ft. Antonia had huge high walls like a 120 ft tall, and the size was a city within the city of Jerusalem.

It always helps to go to the orginal, not the second hand knowledge of your hero who keeps saying we don't know where the temple was. Jesephus was there, and it tells a first hand account.

One has to account for 2 600 ft long colinades bridging over from Ft. Antonia to the Herod temple.

Like a bird or butterfly can navigate across thousands of miles to find Home, so is Jerusalem to a Jew. The Temple Mount is their homing device, their hearts the sensor.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by JadeMountain

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

. Don't equate this to putting a flag on the moon, it has nothing to do with territory, it has to do with what people consider sacred. To muslim that spot is nothing but a thumb in the eye of the jews. In islam whenever they conquer a territory they stick a mosque on the conquered people's holiest spot to piss them off, as a sign of them being conquered.

You just go round in circles.
A flag on the moon is the same as a mosque on a conquered spot.
Both a claim to have achieved something

I am saying to jews that spot is more than just about territory to jews and you keep misunderstanding.

Originally posted by rootbranch2012
Like a bird or butterfly can navigate across thousands of miles to find Home, so is Jerusalem to a Jew. The Temple Mount is their homing device, their hearts the sensor.

Darn, I wonder where the 43 percent secular Jewish conversion type call home? Since the Jewish, you tell consider home elsewhere than their country of residence, such promotes disloyalty and internal strife for foreign interests. I wonder where the Khazar Jewish call home.

If the old temple seal was applied to a page, such as your theme, could it gain the seal or be refused...

en.wikipedia.org...

According to a 2010 Israel Central Bureau of Statistics study[21] on Israelis aged over 18, 8% of Israeli Jews define themselves as haredim (or Ultra-Orthodox); an additional 12% are "religious" (non-haredi orthodox, also known as: dati leumi/national-religious or religious zionist); 13% consider themselves "religious-traditionalists" (mostly adhering to Jewish Halakha); 25% are "non-religious traditionalists" (only partly respecting the Jewish Halakha), and 43% are "secular". Among the seculars, 53% say they believe in God. Due to the higher natality rate of religious and traditionalists over seculars, the share of religious and traditionalists among the overall population is even higher.

www.americanhumanist.org...


Because of the strong Secular Humanist identity with the images of Prometheus and Socrates, and equally strong rejection of traditional religion, the Secular Humanist actually agrees with Tertullian—who said: "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?"

That is, Secular Humanists identify more closely with the rational heritage symbolized by ancient Athens than with the faith heritage epitomized by ancient Jerusalem.

But don't assume from this that Secular Humanism is only negative. The positive side is liberation, best expressed in these words of American agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll:

When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free-free to think, to express my thoughts-free to live my own ideal, free to live for myself and those I loved, free to use all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination's wings, free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope, free to judge and determine for myself . . . I was free! I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds

It would appear that the Jewish consider home a rock where human sacrifice followed Babylon's Moloch theme, and where killing something must be done to keep his god happy. Such a home, one must question the moral values, and if the seal can be allied as a true bill delivered unto the temple's ground.

Genesis 12. And he will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be upon all, and everyone's hand upon him, and before all his brothers he will dwell.

Rashi Commentary: A wild donkey of a man: who loves the wilderness to hunt beasts, as it is written (below 21:20f):“And he was an archer; and he dwelt in the desert of Paran.” :
his hand will be upon all: [He will be] a bandit. — [from Tan. Shemot]
and everyone’s hand upon him: Everyone will hate him and attack him.
and before all his brothers he will dwell: for his seed will be numerous.

COMPLETE TEXT FROM ORIGINAL HEBREW - GENESIS 16
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Human sacrifice is forbidden in Jewish Law.

References in the Tanakh point to an awareness of human sacrifice in the history of ancient Near Eastern practice. The king of Moab gives his firstborn son and heir as a whole burnt offering (olah, as used of the Temple sacrifice). It is apparently effective, as his enemy is promptly repelled by a 'great wrath' (2 Kings 3:27). In the book of the prophet Micah, one asks, 'Shall I give my firstborn for my sin, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?' (Micah 6:7), and receives a response, 'He has shown all you people what is good. And what does Yahweh require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.' (Micah 6:8) The Tanakh also implies that the Ammonites offered child sacrifices to Moloch.

In Leviticus 18:21, 20:3 and Deuteronomy 12:30-31, 18:10, the Torah contains a number of imprecations against and laws forbidding child sacrifice. James Kugel argues that the Torah's specifically forbidding child sacrifice indicates that it happened in Israel as well.[4] Mark S. Smith argues that the mention of "Topeth" in Isaiah 30:27–33 indicates an acceptance of child sacrifice in the early Jerusalem practices, to which the law in Leviticus 20:2–5 forbidding child sacrifice is a response.[5] Jon D. Levenson, Susan Nidditch and Susan Ackerman have stated that at least some Israelites believed child sacrifice was a legitimate part of ancient Israelite religion.[6]

Genesis 22 relates the binding of Isaac, in which God tests Abraham by asking him to present his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. No reason is given within the text. Abraham agrees to this command without arguing. The story ends with an angel stopping Abraham at the last minute and making Isaac's sacrifice unnecessary by providing a ram, caught in some nearby bushes, to be sacrificed instead. Francesca Stavrakopoulou has speculated that it is possible that the story "contains traces of a tradition in which Abraham does sacrifice Isaac.[7] Richard Elliott Friedman has argued that the story may have originally had Abraham carrying out the sacrifice of Isaac, but that later repugnance at the idea of a human sacrifice led a redactor to add the lines in which a ram is substituted for Isaac.[8] Rabbi A.I. Kook, first Chief Rabbi of Israel, stressed that the climax of the story, commanding Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac, is the whole point: to put an end to the ritual of child sacrifice, which contradicts the morality of a perfect and giving (not taking) monotheistic God.[9]

Another instance of human sacrifice mentioned in the Tanakh is the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11. Jephthah is victorious in battle against the children of Ammon and vows to sacrifice to God whatsoever comes to greet him at the door when he returns home. The vow is stated in Judges 11:31 as

Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering." When he returns from battle, his virgin daughter runs out to greet him. That he actually does sacrifice her is shown in verse 11:39 "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed". This example seems to be the exception rather than the rule, however, as the verse continues "And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite custom that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

Google results in searches *Jewish, sacrifices* is RIFE with disinformation. As a rule, to find the most accurate results that will not lead you astray, always include the words, Hashem, Torah - and either Chabad, Aish or Machon-Memre. This will ensure accuracy and not blatant lies.

WHAT IS JEWISH SACRIFICE - KORBAN
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Secular conversions aren't valid. There's your answer. Just as a side note. I'm not here to be at the receiving end of your obnoxious and obvious trolling. Keep a civil tongue and refrain from racist comments or you will be simply be put on ignore for ever after. No questions asked. Hope this is clear.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

I would think you know the Judaism is a religion and not a race, else all the Khazars could not be Jewish.

I think, one can read the real issue with the seal is the Jewish just can't stand Allah being more correct for the control of temple mount. They never engaged in the ritual of sacrifice of animals and things like the Red Heffer game for the temple. Certainly, if Allah protects the world from this this pagan nonsense, then Allah is best to have the Rock.


When one studies Josephus, one finds the temple faced East and had a solid gold Eastern Front and elsewhere it was white. What lies East but the City of Ur and Eridu, the City of Ur being where Abraham was born and waked with the gods, much as Enoch knew the gods. What did the gods of Abraham value but gold, which was why the came to Earth. Such one learns from the Sumerian Texts, and Book of Enoch.


Josephus tells the temple of Soloman was not the Rock, but the real temple was well South of the rock and stood over the edge of the ridge. So, when the Mosque bows to Mecca and the South, they turn their well washed rear ends to the Rock of Sacrafices, and their highest respect to Mecca. So, they are not respecting sacrafice and not worshiping the false concepts of god and gold to the East. Good symbolic moves.

Allah for them cannot be anything symbolically, but only prayers to Allah surfice and turning away from those with the wrong values for god.

Allah likely finds it more than Odd that a temple that had the Red Heffer game going would burn a cow to ashes, then toss the ashes all in the water and the temple items and call that purified. Yet, that appears to be the need and want for the control over the Rock by the Jewish that fail the true concept for god.

Allah does the world a serious favor by eternally keeping the Jewish god needing sacrifice of animals from this rock.


You are going to have to discover that ATS is a discussion forum and it values opinion and discussions, and there is a differing opnion process, and there will be many others that don't place your seal of approval on all things Jewish in belief.

I do think the central issues is that you cannot defend your beliefs in a rational sense, and these issues of your beliefs in false gods are coming out. In the sense of the Temple's East looking and Gold affront, it worships the Creator gods of Eridu and Sumeria.

Allah concepts appear to have trumpted the Jewish and the Symbol of the Mason's Shrine with the Scimitar in control of the Jerusalem Crescent will be a long held value. Even if the 3rd temple comes along, the burnt offerings need to be abolished, else surely so will the 3 rd temple be erased from the ground.

There are many problems in Middle Eastern derived religions, and changes need to be recognized for the good of the community of man. That means everyone's benefits, not just Jewish.

Originally posted by Atzil321
Using archeology as a political tool... The Nazis were into that sort of thing also.

2nd line....

where did the word 'archaeology' come from? what does it mean???