An article today about someone digging under the Temple

[A_Nony_Mouse]

You stated: "Josephus records Herod and his guests could observe the temple sacrifices from his palace. There was even a dispute that had to be settled in Rome when the priests built a wall to block his view." Where the fuck is it said in Josephus? Answer the question. Or say clearly that you were mistaken in your initial post.

If you were literate you would have understood that is what has been redacted. You asked me to repeat what I replaced that with. I did.

So what kind of IDIOT NERF BRAIN would think there was ever a temple on that hill?

That is my reply to the OP in the form of a rhetorical question. You can look it up to see what that is.

Again you have me confused with someone who gives a shit. As long as the US stays out of the crazy zionists' wars I could care less what kind of fool thinks there was a temple there. It is things like this that show religion is a deadly thing that should be outlawed were that possible.

[Peter Kirby]

This isn't about politics.

[spin]

You stated: "Josephus records Herod and his guests could observe the temple sacrifices from his palace. There was even a dispute that had to be settled in Rome when the priests built a wall to block his view." Where the fuck is it said in Josephus? Answer the question. Or say clearly that you were mistaken in your initial post.

Still waiting for evidence for these two claims.

This is not evidence:

If you were literate you would have understood that is what has been redacted.

This is an unsupported assertion. You don't support assertions with further assertions. I asked for the Josephan source for your claims and you functionally tell me that you have no support. It's been redacted, you claim. Come back when you are prepared to support anything you say with substantive evidence.

[Peter Kirby]

Again you have me confused with someone who gives a shit.

You've made clear that you don't give a shit about the subject from the angle of a historical approach, have you not?

That's the kind of thing that typically has led to a ban in the past. Just saying.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Again you have me confused with someone who gives a shit.

You've made clear that you don't give a shit about the subject from the angle of a historical approach, have you not?

That's the kind of thing that typically has led to a ban in the past. Just saying.

Yes, that is what the abstruse it trying to provoke. I am not interested in playing his game. The game for which I do not give a.

My first post did in fact address it as history. I recited one example from Josephus from which certain locations can be eliminated. It is a well known citation. Agreed I did not provide a footnote as no one else here does so I did not assume that was a requirement.

I also gave a link to that and six other ancient sources from which location can be inferred but mostly by exclusion of the so-called temple mount. I suggest that is about as far as one can go presenting the historical sources related to location. What I posted and the references on the URL are all well known to people who have looked into it. They are all over the internet and come up in many related google searches which is where I first found the list.

What I will do it simply ignore the abstruse for obvious reasons.

[andrewcriddle]

The passage from Josephus is presumably Antiquities book 20 chapter 8 section 11

About the same time king Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico. Now this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneus. and was situate upon an elevation, and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city, which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could lie down, and eat, and thence observe what was done in the temple; which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw they were very much displeased at it; for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west, which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals. At these doings both king Agrippa, and principally Festus the procurator, were much displeased; and Festus ordered them to pull the wall down again: but the Jews petitioned him to give them leave to send an embassage about this matter to Nero; for they said they could not endure to live if any part of the temple should be demolished; and when Festus had given them leave so to do, they sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael the high priest, and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure. And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero's wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero, and who gave order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ismael as hostages with herself. As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest.

I'm not sure why it is particularly problematic to claim that one could see into the temple from a high elevation in the upper city, (the Hasmonean palace). Although it may have implications as to the precise location of the temple within the current Haram.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

The passage from Josephus is presumably Antiquities book 20 chapter 8 section 11

I'm not sure why it is particularly problematic to claim that one could see into the temple from a high elevation in the upper city, (the Hasmonean palace). Although it may have implications as to the precise location of the temple within the current Haram.

Thanks Andrew. That's just what I needed.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The passage from Josephus is presumably Antiquities book 20 chapter 8 section 11

About the same time king Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico. Now this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneus. and was situate upon an elevation, and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city, which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could lie down, and eat, and thence observe what was done in the temple; which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw they were very much displeased at it; for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west, which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals. At these doings both king Agrippa, and principally Festus the procurator, were much displeased; and Festus ordered them to pull the wall down again: but the Jews petitioned him to give them leave to send an embassage about this matter to Nero; for they said they could not endure to live if any part of the temple should be demolished; and when Festus had given them leave so to do, they sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael the high priest, and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure. And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero's wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero, and who gave order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ismael as hostages with herself. As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest.

I'm not sure why it is particularly problematic to claim that one could see into the temple from a high elevation in the upper city, (the Hasmonean palace). Although it may have implications as to the precise location of the temple within the current Haram.

Andrew Criddle

Because we know where this palace was. Arkies have found it. It could not have looked down on the top of the hill. It is not high enough. That is only one of the location inferring passages.

Compare that to NO statement any place that the temple was on that hill. There are mentions of the Antonine barracks and the temple of Astarte on top of that hill. No place is there a mention of the Yahu temple also being there.

This is not a discussion comparing evidence. This is evidence against unprovenanced religious tradition, a tradition which I cannot find being older than the 19th c. but that is hardly of interest as whenever it started it is still unprovenanced.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Speaking of bibleland archaeology, http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alex ... -comp.html

The standard of archaeology is to reconstruct a civilization from its remains. From that reconstruction one can then evaluate any written materials about the civilization uncovered. Archaeology being a science in that it uses scientific methods is separate from the stories some arkies like to weave about the finds themselves. Clearly buildings do not come with stories attached. The only credible source is inscriptions on the buildings or written material uncovered in the process such as the clay tablets of Babylon and Ugarit. In some cases all we have is a library and indications there was once a lot of written material kept here at one time. In some cases we have only stories about libraries like the one at Alexandria. Of course the existence of libraries is not license to fantasize about the contents of the material that was once in the library.

In the 19th c. with the opening of Egypt to the west by France under Napoleon and later England the rich hired adventurers to go there and bring back the evidence of Abraham, Moses and Exodus. They charged off with a bible in one hand and cash in the other to bring back this evidence. The more they looked the more they found that was incongruent with a flea-ridden goatherd barging in on the king and making demands. Where a backwater kingdom made prosperous by Greek rule was expected they found a culture far beyond their imaginings. To put this in context, there is still so much to be uncovered today that Egypt has penciled in the digs it will authorize over the next century.

By the end of the century serious researchers realized the bible was totally worthless as a guide for ancient Egypt, rejected its use, and adopted scientific methods. This was the invention of the science of archaeology. Unfortunately an entire class of fake archaeologists commonly called biblical archaeologists continues to exist and rip off believers to this day. They no longer ply their trade in Egypt but in bibleland. On top of the believers the rise of Zionism added a political element to the subject which should be called zionists archaeology.

You can recognize the writings of these people by their biblical references. They will take finds which by themselves show nothing more than the land was inhabited (which likely goes back some 80,000 years) and talk about "the time of Solomon" and "the first temple period." Of course there is no Solomon nor first temple in archaeology. So they are bringing the long discredited bible, discredited since the 19th c., into the discussion to describe finds which have no intrinsic relationship to the stories the descriptions they use.

[spin]

Speaking of bibleland archaeology, http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alex ... -comp.html

The standard of archaeology is to reconstruct a civilization from its remains. From that reconstruction one can then evaluate any written materials about the civilization uncovered. Archaeology being a science in that it uses scientific methods is separate from the stories some arkies like to weave about the finds themselves. Clearly buildings do not come with stories attached. The only credible source is inscriptions on the buildings or written material uncovered in the process such as the clay tablets of Babylon and Ugarit. In some cases all we have is a library and indications there was once a lot of written material kept here at one time. In some cases we have only stories about libraries like the one at Alexandria. Of course the existence of libraries is not license to fantasize about the contents of the material that was once in the library.

In the 19th c. with the opening of Egypt to the west by France under Napoleon and later England the rich hired adventurers to go there and bring back the evidence of Abraham, Moses and Exodus. They charged off with a bible in one hand and cash in the other to bring back this evidence. The more they looked the more they found that was incongruent with a flea-ridden goatherd barging in on the king and making demands. Where a backwater kingdom made prosperous by Greek rule was expected they found a culture far beyond their imaginings. To put this in context, there is still so much to be uncovered today that Egypt has penciled in the digs it will authorize over the next century.

By the end of the century serious researchers realized the bible was totally worthless as a guide for ancient Egypt, rejected its use, and adopted scientific methods. This was the invention of the science of archaeology. Unfortunately an entire class of fake archaeologists commonly called biblical archaeologists continues to exist and rip off believers to this day. They no longer ply their trade in Egypt but in bibleland. On top of the believers the rise of Zionism added a political element to the subject which should be called zionists archaeology.

You can recognize the writings of these people by their biblical references. They will take finds which by themselves show nothing more than the land was inhabited (which likely goes back some 80,000 years) and talk about "the time of Solomon" and "the first temple period." Of course there is no Solomon nor first temple in archaeology. So they are bringing the long discredited bible, discredited since the 19th c., into the discussion to describe finds which have no intrinsic relationship to the stories the descriptions they use.

This stuff has nothing to do with the thread topic.