Dome of the Rock holds hidden mathematics as found in Jewish temple

I have  a new paper which will show that the Dome of the Rock holds hidden length ratios as in the sacred space of the Jewish temples.  Other similar octagonal buildings also have these ratios present in their design. It is remarkable that the Dome of the Rock exists on the Jewish temple site with both sacred spaces having these very same ratios. you may find this paper here.

octagonal building mysteries

Holy Sepulcher has proof of Jewish temple location

I have updated my paper on the the Church of the Holy Sepulcher proving the Jewish temple location. You may find the paper here:

A Proof of Jerusalem Temple’s location can be found in Church of Holy Sepulchre.

This paper shows the location of Golgotha and how important landmarks of the city were measured.

Hidden triangle has a Muslem connection to the Jewish Temple

I have discovered connections of the Muslim inner platform on which the Dome of the Rock was built, reuse Jewish temple measurements.and features. This involves the angle and length of the eastern wall of the inner platform. I have also discovered a 3-4-5 right triangle which I have not seen before in the design. 3-4-5 right triangles were very ancient types of sacred triangles.

I will put the details in my updated paper.  

major evidence for the location of the Jerusalem Temple

More evidence for the location of the  Jerusalem Temple comes from  the archeological remains of known locations of large cisterns about a central area which match ancient Talmudic descriptions for where cisterns could have been dug on the temple site. This has been done in other reconstructions (as by Leen Ritmeyer), but one unique particular cistern is a major piece of evidence for placing the temple precisely at my location.

This cistern of an unusual shape has a noticeable hole in a knob at its western end  This hole appears to be a well shaft similar to wells having a large pulley wheel once attached to a  rope to pull up buckets of water.

  • This cistern seen in Fig.D7  and in Figs. 6 and 6a

(see my paper “How Jerusalem Temple Laid Out Using Measuring Cords” )

puts this well just within the southern end of the outdoor court yard, and thus outside the Golah Chamber, whereas Leen Ritmeyer’s reconstruction puts the well Inside the chamber building. This difference in distance is very slight but very significant because in my reconstruction, water could have been drawn efficiently within the courtyard instead of from a room inside a building. If the well was ever made to overflow (by aqua duct or connecting to the Laver water supply which appears to have been the case since a connection did exist [see Fig. 86 number 40 in Below The Temple Mount In Jerusalem; Shimon Gibson and David M. Jacobson; BAR International Series 637; Hadrian Books Ltd; England), this would have flooded the courtyard with much needed water to wash the bloody courtyard. To flood the courtyard with a well located inside a building would have been obviously impossible to achieve. There also were a number of smaller openings running in a long narrow section running south of the big well which would have been inside the chamber in both reconstructions. In both reconstructions this wheel well would have been near the ramps going up to the nearby altar. Here is a fact: I have created a reconstruction made by laying out a triangle from natural features on the temple mount, which predicts where temple features should have been located. If during archaeological digging, the predicted feature does exist, then the whole design is confirmed. Here is just one example where archaeological digging — the known existence of this underground cistern with this well like opening (I believe there is evidence of rope wear on the sides of this well hole which would be evidence of this being a well shaft at some time) is precisely where my model predicts this well to be — by the side of the ramp going up to and close to the base of the great altar, but just abetting the wall of the nearby Golah Chamber building. This location also is my predicted location of the Golah Chamber being west of the Hewn Chamber, both chambers being near the altar. (The Golah Chamber being in Benjamin, and the Hewn Chamber being in Judah as detailed in my paper.) This location also shows a connection to my predicted location of the laver. Now this laver was located on the south side of the temple’s Ulam. This is similar to the thigh bone being connected to the hip bone and the hip is connected to…  i.e. if you find one bone in a skeleton, you can reconstruct the locations of all the other bones but only if you know the lengths of the other bones. In the case of the temple and all the courts we do from the Talmud.

A number of other cisterns are on predicted sites. In fact all cisterns are either on the predicted sites or are very close to them. I have a number of other predicted sites working perfectly, which are not cisterns. All of these sites are detailed in my paper.

Here are major pieces of evidence for my location:

  •  Cistern 24 have dimensions and structures matching Talmudic detailing. (I am in the process of adding this cistern to my paper. I will announce this when the update is available.
  • Great Altar must be on bedrock.
  • Temple had to be close to summit of the hill where the mid line through the eastern end of the Holy Place on the northern side of this mid line would have the bedrock just below the floor level to allow a priest to obtain dirt from the bedrock floor here for the ritual of Sotah. A adult male could not lift a 1 Cubit square stone and reach the underlying bedrock  by going down a ladder by squeezing though a 1 Cubit square hole. He must have been able to touch the rock because the depth of the foundation had to be very shallow at this particular location.
  • The location of the well hole discussed previously is at the predicted location outside the Golah Chamber.
  • Details of the rock under octagonal building can be explained as not being the site of the Holy of Holies. Also the age of cuttings on the surface of this rock can be dated post temple destruction described in my paper linked here.
  • Evidence within the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as described in my paper, ” Holy Sepulchre

Except for the final statement, all of the above holds true in my reconstruction, but not in the Leen Ritmeyer reconstruction.

 

concerning the location of a southern Jewish temple staircase

I predict straight stairs could be found within the southern end of the Muslim Platform on the temple mount in Jerusalem. This would have been a temple feature of the southern Cheil. If ever archeological evidence for straight stairs were found buried at this southern end of the platform, this would help to confirm my location of the temple. The southern edge of the Muslim platform would have been the southern edge of the Cheil and the line of the Soreg. This edge of the platform was a temple feature pro served to this day.

The link to my paper on the temple’s location and various diagrams can be found at this link.

Jewish Temple paper.

Locating the site of the Jerusalem Temple

Locations of curved steps in the Court of the Women.

Locations of curved steps in the Court of the Women.

 

I will be updating some of my old papers whose links can be found in this blog.

I wish to state a very important fact: If ever a trench is cut on the eastern side of the Muslim platform on the temple mount, which shows archaeological evidence for a curving staircase (15 curving steps would be the total number of steps, but even finding evidence of one curving step would be enough) buried below the surface of the platform, this would be confirmation of the location of the temple, since the Talmud describes curved steps leading up to Nikanor’s Gate from the Court of the Women. A curving step was a unique feature found nowhere else in the temple. Since we have dimensions stated in the Talmud, we can reconstruct were many locations were if we know the length of a Cubit.

If these stairs match the location of the calculated location for these stairs in my article on the temple’s location, then this paper has proven where the temple stood on the temple mount because this one calculated piece of the puzzle is specific enough to confirm other parts of the puzzle such as the location of the Azarah etc. My paper uses the same size cubit as Leen Ritmeyer’s cubit measure.

Also L. Ritmeyer points out (Ritmeyer, L. (2006). The Quest, Carta Jerusalem, p. 354) and also is apparent by looking at his drawings of the temple) that his placing of these curved steps in the location shown in his book and various publications, coincides with the present straight Muslim staircase (but at a slightly different angle) that if remains of any curved staircase were to be found under the present Muslim staircase whenever this Muslim staircase might be excavated, then this would be confirmatory evidence of his location (labeled 3). But the inverse also is true: if no curved stairs or staircase is found under the Muslim staircase, then this may mean Nakanor’s Gate was never nearby and my location (labeled 2) could be possible.

According to my model, under, beside, or behind the current Muslim Staircase must be no bedrock, but a filling of non bedrock material would be expected as this would have been ground in the middle of the Court of the Women. My model does allow for bedrock farther to the north around the cisterns pictured and by the location labeled (1) located there which would be ground due north of the Court of the Lepers and not within the Court of the Women. This will be discussed in my updated paper on the temple’s location.

In the figure, the eastern edge of the Muslim Platform is labeled (1), The Dome of the Rock building is labeled (4), the Dome of the Chain is labeled (5), and two cisterns are labeled (6) all shown for reference.