Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 8 (since 2015-05-28 03:08:29)

Simply seeking His peace & justice for all mankind

Showing comments 8 - 1
Page:

  • Hectored by Zionist wannabe archaeologists, 'NYT' recasts article on Jewish temples
    • It is not in dispute in the mainstream, however, it is very much debated in the archeological arena, even in Jerusalem because the temple mount as the location for either temple is not supported by what is written in the Tanakh.

    • yonah, the Tanakh begs to differ with you. 1Chron 21 & 2Chron 3:1 The place of both temples was in the city of David, the former city of Ornan the Jebusite, where David was instructed to buy the site of Ornan the Jebuste's threshing floor and then build an alter on the place of that threshing floor that David had bought from Ornan the Jebusite. Ornan sought to give it to David, however, according to the historical account in 1 Chron 21, David refused, insisting upon paying for that land as he was instructed to do. One must be careful to approach history as an agnostic who has no skin in the game if one wants to weed out the truth of history rather than seek only that which supports ones blind obedience to religious myths and legends.

    • I am not confusing the streets of an ancient city with the streets of Fort Antonia. It is modern history that has confused the ancient streets of Jerusalem/ City of David with a post 70AD city that was built much later. It is as Josephus said, the City of David a.k.a. Jerusalem, a walled city, was utterly destroyed in 70AD, not a stone was left because after the destruction, when what we know today as the "old city" was built, they took any stones that were left from the original city and used them in the building of what is known today as the "old city" that went through many periods of uprising and war and thus has been rebuilt many times over the past 2 millennia. Therefore, my response is correct in that there came to be a city called Jerusalem after the temple was destroyed, however, that city was not built in the location of the original city of Jerusalem, the City of David wherein the Gihon Spring and the shaft of Hezekiah has now been discovered and made known to the entire world.

      For the "old city" as it is offered today, there must be a natural spring arising in the midst of it and the fact is, it does not and so we know that this "old city", while sacred to the Jews, it is not the location in which God placed His Name & His Temple because for there to be a Temple, there must be a natural spring with flowing water close to an ancient olive press for the purification of the Levitical priests. What we know today as the "old city of Jerusalem" does not meet these requirements and neither does the temple mount, however, the ancient City of David does, including the now discovered ancient olive press that is a mere 30 ft from the Gihon Spring. See "Bob (Robert) Cornuke and Eli Shukron, Director of excavations in the city of David) and the ongoing excavations in the City of David surrounding the Gihon Spring).

      And thus we read Lam 2:8 The LORD hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion; He hath stretched out the line, He hath not withdrawn His hand from destroying; but He hath made the rampart and wall to mourn, they languish together. 9 Her gates are sunk into the ground; He hath destroyed and broken her bars; her king and her princes are among the nations, instruction is no more; yea, her prophets find no vision from the LORD. [JPS]

      It is as Josephus records, the original city lay utterly destroyed, buried underground, even her gates. Shalom

    • They are Roman streets because they are the streets of the ancient Roman Citadel that housed the Roman military. Josephus records this citadel as being the size of 3 cities that included within its walls many temples of worship, baths, stores, housing for the soldiers, stalls to house the horses of the army, etc., etc., everything the Romans needed was all inclusive in this citadel the size of 3 cities. Josephus records that when the temple was destroyed, the entire city of Jerusalem utterly lay destroyed to the ground, the only structure that remained standing was the enormous Roman citadel and its walls. So yes, the Roman streets have been rebuilt and fortified many times over the years and thus you are correct, the current streets are not those of the 1st century, but newer ones that were laid down after many centuries of wars that occurred in the citadel of the Roman army.

    • Yes, history proves that Jews were exiled for a time from Jerusalem, however, Rome never exiled them from the entire landscape of Judea, or greater Israel for that matter.

      It is subjects such as this that we must let the Hebrew bible, the historical book of the Judaism, tell us where the temple was. According to this historical book, the temple was in the city of David. Moriah was a name recorded much later after the Babylonian captivity that has no historical foundation in the Torah or the Prophets. The Torah calls Judea the region of Moriah in which Abraham was sent to the region of Moriah and then God would show Abraham which mountain/hill in that region to ascend. Then in the Prophets, the temple is built by Solomon in the city where the Gihon Spring flowed through the fortified (walled) city of David that has a constant supply of fresh running water within the walls protecting the city of David and the temple. This is where the temple was built and according to the historical book of Judaism, the Gihon springs supplied the water for the pool of Siloam that was connected to the temple. This is all verified in Josephus, Antiquities.

      There is a reason that the Palestinians are being driven out of the area of the original city of David where the Gihon spring has been uncovered along with some pretty strong evidence of the original temple that was there. The "temple mount" as it is proffered to the public today, is but a tool used to keep the tensions and protests at a level so to be able to use them to justify further removal of the Palestinians from their ancestral homes in the area of the true location of the city of David & Solomon's temple so to set up that which is needed for the Jewish messiah to come. "Keep them looking at the left hand, so they do not see what the right hand is doing"

      So even the Torah of Moses and the Prophets do not support a temple of the God of Israel as being built anywhere but within the city of David near the Gihon Spring. Therefore, what is the real reason for the article by Gladstone and then its retraction. I would say, "Controlled Opposition" in order to further some upcoming agenda the Zionists have planned out, a tool in which the Zionist are extremely well versed in.

  • 'This land is ours. All of it is ours': Meet the Netanyahu cabinet members focused on fighting BDS & annexing the West Bank
    • Ah, but the Talmudic logic flies counter clockwise to what the Word of God actually says. Therefore, whose logic is at play in Israeli-stine?

    • Very well said. It is the ideology that is the problem. An ideology based on fiction ( a twisting of His Word) rather than the facts that God spoke through His prophets, beginning with Moses.

      Lev 25:23 ‘And the land is not to be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine, for you are sojourners and settlers with Me.'

      The land of Israel belongs to God, just as the whole earth is His. He leased His land to the Israelites under very clear terms that if they broke the terms of the lease, they would be scattered throughout the earth until Moshiach be David comes to restore the land. Shalom

    • Jeremiah 11, the Judah broke the covenant. Ezekiel 11, those who say that the land was given to them as a possession forever are not brethren of Ezekiel . Ezekiel 21 says that the scepter, aka, the right to rule the land was taken away from Judah and will not return to Judah until Moshiach ben David comes because to Him it belongs. Daniel 2, the image reflects all the regimes who rule the land until Moshiach ben David comes to restore His nation Israel and that image does not include a regime ruled by those who God cast out of His land because they broke His covenant. It is all there in black & white. Sure there are true biblical Israelites in the land as God promised that there would always remain a remnant of His people throughout all the ages, throughout all the regimes represented in the image in Daniel 2 and that is why when the Israelites returned to Judea from the Babylonian captivity, they were specifically told NOT to remove the boundary stones of the inhabitants, but to treat them as they themselves seek to be treated because they too were strangers in Egypt. Shalom

Showing comments 8 - 1
Page: