The article on the temple posted Aug. 25 describes a most ironic key to the Jewish temple location. The Muslim authorities have denied the existence of the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. They have destroyed evidence from crude diggings made on the site. The irony is that a major piece of evidence is preserved on the rock itself for all to see. This evidence is also preserved in the very fabric of the Muslim structure which they can never destroy or remove! You can see it in the picture below.
They cannot cut or modify the rock in any way. The right side is especially important as it contains ‘fingerprint’ marks of the archangel Gabriel, who in Muslim belief held the rock at this location to prevent it from ascending upward after Mohammad ascended upward. (This part of the rock is near a tower holding a piece of rock, and a few hairs from the beard of the Prophet.)
Notice that a railing surrounds the rock. Look an the right side of this picture (facing west). Here the rock, having a natural scarp, is at its highest side. Notice a part of the railing has a very slight bend in it conforming to the fact the base of the rock bows outward at the bend. You will notice the entire inner side of the fence is in deep dark shadow owing to a low base cut edge on the rock, but at the bend you can see the rock bowing outward.
When the fence was installed, the builders did not want to cut or modify the rock whatsoever, thus the visible bend in the fence at this point.
Now note that if we extend a line from to the left (eastward), it reaches the low (northern) edge of the hole in the rock. You can see light coming out of the hole from the lighted cave below the surface of the rock.
This bend in the fence due to the bowing of the rock’s base was on the axis line of the temple. This preserves to this day, the original axis (can also be called the central line or mid-line) of the Jewish temple.
The hole in the rock marks the bedrock under what was under the mid-line running through the Ulam or Porch of Solomon’s Temple, just before the doors. In Herod’s temple, this would have been on the mid-line going over the Temple’s threshold at the exact center of the inner courtyard (The Azarah).
The high area at the center of the rock, at the exact center of domed building which has a small visible trapezoidal shaped depression (or just to the left (eastward) of this depression), would have been the bedrock where dirt was obtained for the Bitter Water ritual (Sotah) just to the right into the Holy Place (Heickiel). Here a 1 cubit square paving stone could be lifted to expose this bedrock. The Dome of the Rock building is centered on or centered very close to the site where this paving stone would have existed in the temple.
The details and discussions of these and other matters concerning the temple are given in the article found here.
False. I believe that this rock is where Jesus stood in the Fortress Antonia as he was sentenced by Pontus Pilate. The real site of the Jewish Temple is @ 1000 feet south of this site–at least. A threshing floor could not have been on a site of rough rock. Besides, when the Antichrist forges a treaty between the Jews and the Arabs, the Jews will be able to build their Third Temple without having to destroy the Dome of the Rock.
Thank you for your comment. The problem with your answer is that if what you believe is true, then you have proven that the Talmud’s description of the temple to be false. A description dated from the time when people were alive to have seen the actual
site. The article describer the temple had to be highest point of bedrock for the sotah ritual. Any site to the south, have ment this stone floor never existed since the bed rock would be far to low.
Other problems is that the Talmud details cisterns which do not exist in the southern location you point out.
The Shushon Gate would have been too far from your temple site and too close to the fortress.
There are gates in the western wall going into the fortress- a definite no no when building a fortress as you do not want the mobs easy access to any fort.
The location of the fort at the Dome of the Rock site, would have been within the sacred 500 Amos area of the temple mount.
This violates all possibilities that a pagan fort would have been constructed in this sacred area. Considering that the original fort was built by the Maccabees dynasty of Jewish kings, and King Herod be built the fort on these foundation, the fort could not have been located on the site of the Dome of the Rock. Josephus even describes this fort being outside the temple area with a passage into the temple.
Also, your finding of the temple to the south, violates all the evidence presented by Leen Ritmeyer as to the location of the 500
Amos square, and my evidence of the square’s location from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher Golgotha (Calgery) rock. You would have the fort within the area of the square inside the most sacred area of the temple!
The surface of any ground were much building occurs over a few years gets changed. A building site in London can change in 50 years. How more so would the bedrock on the temple site have been dug up over a few thousand years by Romans, Christians, Moslem over a few thousands years. The rock was cut and desecrated for centuries. You expect to see a pristine threshing floor after all these years?
My work on the temple site does not need any threshing floor in the geometry I propose. Another problem with a discussion of a threshing floor is that the biblical descriptions are contradictory in a number of details which would not be upheld in any modern court of law.