Pesky damned herodian temple
Matt Giwer
In which an account of the sacking of Jerusalem is given with the sequences of
conquest is first the lower city, then the temple, and proceeds finally to
the upper city.
Book 6 Chapter 6
2. But as for the tyrants themselves, and those that were with them, when
they found that they were encompassed on every side, and, as it were, walled
round, without any method of escaping, they desired to treat with Titus by
word of mouth. Accordingly, such was the kindness of his nature, and his
desire of preserving the city from destruction, joined to the advice of his
friends, who now thought the robbers were come to a temper, that he placed
himself on the western side of the outer [court of the] temple; for there
were gates on that side above the Xystus, and a bridge that connected the
upper city to the temple.
.....
Chapter 7
2. On the next day the Romans drove the robbers out of the lower city, and
set all on fire as far as Siloam. These soldiers were indeed glad to see the
city destroyed. But they missed the plunder, because the seditious had
carried off all their effects, and were retired into the upper city;
.....
CHAPTER 8.
How Caesar Raised Banks Round About The Upper City [Mount Zion] And When
They Were Completed, Gave Orders That The Machines Should Be Brought. He
Then Possessed Himself Of The Whole City.
1. Now when Caesar perceived that the upper city was so steep that it could
not possibly be taken without raising banks against it, he distributed the
several parts of that work among his army, and this on the twentieth day of
the month Lous.
--
A real American only needs one finger while an Englishman requires two.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4176
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Tue Sep 29 23:33:37 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> The Wars of the Jews, Flavius Josephus
> In which an account of the sacking of Jerusalem is given with the
> sequences of conquest is first the lower city, then the temple, and
> proceeds finally to the upper city.
> Book 6 Chapter 6
> 2. But as for the tyrants themselves, and those that were with them, when
> they found that they were encompassed on every side, and, as it were,
> walled
> round, without any method of escaping, they desired to treat with Titus by
> word of mouth. Accordingly, such was the kindness of his nature, and his
> desire of preserving the city from destruction, joined to the advice of his
> friends, who now thought the robbers were come to a temper, that he placed
> himself on the western side of the outer [court of the] temple; for there
> were gates on that side above the Xystus, and a bridge that connected the
> upper city to the temple.
>
> ......
>
> Chapter 7
> 2. On the next day the Romans drove the robbers out of the lower city, and
> set all on fire as far as Siloam. These soldiers were indeed glad to see
> the
> city destroyed. But they missed the plunder, because the seditious had
> carried off all their effects, and were retired into the upper city;
> ......
> CHAPTER 8.
> How Caesar Raised Banks Round About The Upper City [Mount Zion] And When
> They Were Completed, Gave Orders That The Machines Should Be Brought. He
> Then Possessed Himself Of The Whole City.
> 1. Now when Caesar perceived that the upper city was so steep that it could
> not possibly be taken without raising banks against it, he distributed the
> several parts of that work among his army, and this on the twentieth day of
> the month Lous.
I expect believers to come back later as though they never heard of this.
--
To help mankind a degree in medicine requires great effort, intelligence and
dedication. A degree in divinity requires only dedication.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4184
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Fri Oct 2 00:56:29 EDT 2009
Martin Edwards
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
mof
Let me play the Giwer, JTEM and Edwards here.
Those thoughts of yours are those of a biblethumping zionist believer.
In reality it is just name similiarities.
Where are the physical evidence that proves we are dealing with the
same temple?
To continue, why is this piece of text accepted by you at face value,
while other texts are not? Why do you choose to accept some ideas from
authorities, like that about the Aphrodite statuettes, but not others,
like those Assyrian inscriptions that mention kings of Israel and
Judah?
Where is the method? And where is the consistency?
Matt Giwer
You are free to address the material in any manner you wish. I have simply
been dealing with the completely and totally imaginary location of the temple
on the so-called temple mount. As I pointed out years ago, that location first
appears in history in the late 19th c. That there are still people like you
who think there is a credible basis for the temple mount location after
learning there never was anything but recent invention is what continues to
surprise me -- surprise in a very negative sense of course.
--
There have to be many gods. Only a committee
could have created this world.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4180
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Fri Oct 2 05:17:32 EDT 2009
mof
You are surprised, but I am not. You are telling us that I claim
something about some temple and its whereabouts. Can you please quote
me, where I say something about it? Or can you please just admit that
you are inventing stuff?
Let's go back to a comparison between different evidence. Why do you
accept some, and not others?
From what we have seen through the years you lack more or less all
skills to actually evaluate the different evidence.
Here's your chance to prove us wrong.
For all is similarities, whether it is a king of Judah in the bible or
on an inscription, a temple mentioned in different sources, or some
statuettes that happen to be somewhat similar to a pose of Aphrodite.
It is not enough to just pick and choose from the smörgåsbord of
scholars. You have to be able to explain just how you chose.
> http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/Antisemitism a10
Matt Giwer
> Yes, sweet.
Believers are those who accept religious traditions without physical evidence.
> You are surprised, but I am not. You are telling us that I claim
> something about some temple and its whereabouts. Can you please quote
> me, where I say something about it? Or can you please just admit that
> you are inventing stuff?
Why did you pick this one for your reappearance?
> Let's go back to a comparison between different evidence. Why do you
> accept some, and not others?
Religious traditions are not evidence.
> From what we have seen through the years you lack more or less all
> skills to actually evaluate the different evidence.
Tradition is not evidence. Argumentation is not evidence. Habitation is
evidence of habitation. I am still at a loss as to what evidence you believers
think you have presented.
> Here's your chance to prove us wrong.
Every post by believers is that. It is simply a matter of selection and time
available.
> For all is similarities, whether it is a king of Judah in the bible or
> on an inscription, a temple mentioned in different sources, or some
> statuettes that happen to be somewhat similar to a pose of Aphrodite.
> It is not enough to just pick and choose from the smörgåsbord of
> scholars.
Scholars are not evidence. Josephus does not fall into the scholar category.
What he wrote does constitute evidence. The indications of location are
incidental to the story he tells but the order of conquest is part of the story.
Nothing in the OT anthologies constitute evidence as no one knows where they
came from, who wrote them, when they were written or why they were written. I
have always qualified my acceptance of Maccabe with the slim evidence of his
existence, not every time perhaps but sufficient.
> You have to be able to explain just how you chose.
As always, that for which there is nothing but religious tradition as an
alternative is what I post. It is called shooting fish in a barrel. You
believers have nothing but religious tradition. Anything is better than that
as long as it has some connection to evidence.
In reciting the matter of where the temple was and was not there is nothing
in opposition to anything I post on the matter so in fact it really does not
matter what I post as there is no credible disagreement. That is what I told
you when I recited the recent origin of the religious tradition. Did you not
read it?
Once one has eliminated religious traditions, none of which have any standing
of any kind whatsoever, the range of data which indicates what things were
really like is quite broad and without much need for discrimination. None of
it supports any religious tradition so it hardly matters what I use.
Anything I use makes more sense than religious traditions. That is all I
have ever said and you can read it posted by me many times if you care to do so.
If you have any evidence at all which contradicts what I have posted,
anything at all which supports religious traditions, you would certainly have
posted it by now. If any of my many other nerfbrain detractors had any
contrary evidence to present they would certainly have done so by now.
As I am the only person presenting physical evidence this is the barrel and
you believers are the fish. Have you not realized this?
Do you still have a problem?
Of course you do. I refuse to give your traditions any standing at all. And
that is what bothers you. They are all you have. You have never taken the time
to look for evidenciary foundations for your traditions because you are
fearful of your god or something equally paralyzing.
=====
Now lets hear from the clowns who "prove" the "proto-hebrew" inscriptions
were Hebrew and not Phoenician by showing Phoenician is different from
Rabbinic Hebrew. No matter how many times I point out there is not enough
"proto" stuff to decide not a single one of those self-proclaimed experts has
addressed a single "proto" inscription.
Will one of them ever compare one of those inscriptions and compare it to
Phoenician from the same time period and demonstrate they are different
languages? Of course not.
--
What is the point of woshiping a god that cannot be seen when its
performance is no better than a statue of Apollo?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4193
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Fri Oct 2 06:48:25 EDT 2009
JTEM
JTEM
mof <mof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me play the
There's nothing to play. There really are several contradictory
identifications for the location of the temple.
The location of the Temple to Jupiter, built by Hadrian, figures
prominently in many of these disputes.
Examples?
Herod's Temple:
: After Hadrian destroyed the Temple in AD 135, he built a
: temple to Jupiter on the site.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/crapo_032901.shtml
See that? They built the Temple to Jupiter in the site of
Herod's Temple. But...
Concerning the church of the Holy Sepulchre:
: Hadrian had built a temple to Jupiter and Venus atop the scared spot
: in order to divide and quell the Early Christians. Upon excavating,
: Helena found the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea as well as three
: crosses.
So the Church of the Holy Sepluchre was built in the location of the
temple to Jupiter...
See the issue?
And THIS over simplifies matters a great deal.
If you want to get technical, what we call "Jerusalem" isn't Jerusalem
at all. The city of Jerusalem was razed by the Romans in the 2nd
century AD. Nothing remains of it but archaeology. The Romans built
a new city, "Aelia Capitolina," and this new city did not adhere to
the
footprint of the former city.
It's also interesting to note that the Roman city appears to have had
a East-West alignment. Here's an ancient image of the city:
http://www.jerusalem.com/_media/userfiles/2/520/1580.jpg
Note: What appears to be the most likely spot for the Jewish Temple
lies in the extreme west, but on any modern day map the Dome of
the Rock lies in the south east:
http://wikitravel.org/upload/en/7/70/Map_jerusalem_oldcity.png
Instead of being a douchebag, you should pry your mind open to the
possibility that you don't know everything.
Good luck.
Matt Giwer
> If you want to get technical, what we call "Jerusalem" isn't Jerusalem
> at all. The city of Jerusalem was razed by the Romans in the 2nd
> century AD. Nothing remains of it but archaeology. The Romans built
> a new city, "Aelia Capitolina," and this new city did not adhere to
> the footprint of the former city.
Besides, Salem was the god of the sunset or dusk if you like. The Ugarits had
it all in hand. So David incorporated the gods Yehu and Salem in the new name.
He was light on the whole irony thing.
There is an argument for everything but for the fiction of the OT.
> It's also interesting to note that the Roman city appears to have had
> a East-West alignment. Here's an ancient image of the city:
> http://www.jerusalem.com/_media/userfiles/2/520/1580.jpg
And the current walls of the city are only 400 years old.
> Note: What appears to be the most likely spot for the Jewish Temple
> lies in the extreme west, but on any modern day map the Dome of
> the Rock lies in the south east:
> http://wikitravel.org/upload/en/7/70/Map_jerusalem_oldcity.png
> Instead of being a douchebag, you should pry your mind open to the
> possibility that you don't know everything.
> Good luck.
The wish is Rotsa.
--
Religion puts food on the tables of priests. This
is the sole purpose of religion.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4186
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Fri Oct 2 08:08:57 EDT 2009
JTEM
P.S.
Just so you don't think I'm trying to sneak anything by...
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note: What appears to be the most likely spot for the Jewish Temple
> lies in the extreme west, but on any modern day map the Dome of
> the Rock lies in the south east:
>
> http://wikitravel.org/upload/en/7/70/Map_jerusalem_oldcity.png
Now the Wiki article claims a north-south alignment for the city,
based
on the exact same "map" depicting an east-west alignment.
Strangely, this is even MORE problematic (not less) for the bible
thumpers, as this places the most likely spot for the Temple -- the
"Temple Mount" -- at the extreme NORTH of the city, when any map
today places the Dome of the Rock at the SOUTH EAST of the
"old city."
What I'm pointing out here is that either this ancient map, produced
by ancient people, is wrong, or the Dome of the Rock can't be the
location of Herod's Temple.
Mind you, I'm NOT saying that it can't be wrong, only that the
evidence STRONGLY suggests that the location of the Temple is
anything but settled.
Martin Edwards
> Yes, sweet.
>
> You are surprised, but I am not. You are telling us that I claim
> something about some temple and its whereabouts. Can you please quote
> me, where I say something about it? Or can you please just admit that
> you are inventing stuff?
>
> Let's go back to a comparison between different evidence. Why do you
> accept some, and not others?
>
> From what we have seen through the years you lack more or less all
> skills to actually evaluate the different evidence.
>
> Here's your chance to prove us wrong.
>
> For all is similarities, whether it is a king of Judah in the bible or
> on an inscription, a temple mentioned in different sources, or some
> statuettes that happen to be somewhat similar to a pose of Aphrodite.
>
> scholars. You have to be able to explain just how you chose.
>