Rebuilding of Jerusalem Third Temple may be least expensive way to stabilize climate?

What I said was that records are not ALWAYS evidence.

We have written accounts of many FICTIONAL characters all throughout history. Doesn't mean they actually existed and the written accounts of such characters are simply evidence of fictional stories.

 

This is intriguing.....

https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/...artifacts-proving-jerusalems-jewish-identity/

 

I don't think Jerusalem's Jewish identity has ever been in question, but the city has a shared identity with Islam.

Just like Buffalo, NY has a shared indigenous American and colonial American identity.

 

Some education has to be applied with ancient texts. Not all texts are equal - can you tell the difference between the Congressional Record and a comic book? Of course you can, and people discriminate ancient texts in the same way.

There is also one major fact to consider - writing used to be the art of the very wealthy and educated, the skill required time and formal education, and writing materials were expensive. It has only been in modern times that writing and writing materials were common throughout the population. That means that most formally written ancient texts were to record important items, usually related to government or the army. There are non-official texts, but they are in the form of letters (and clearly identify themselves as letters) or notes/graffiti (and those are obvious as well).

And the city of Troy was thought to be myth, and the Iliad a fairy tale, until Troy was actually found in the 1850s/1860s. You cant simply dismiss ancient texts as fantasy just because there is no currently available corroborating physical evidence.

 

I never dismissed ancient texts as fantasy. All I said was that records are not ALWAYS evidence. You yourself admitted that...

Which is what I insisted previously. Without physical evidence, one can only SPECULATE as to whether something mentioned in ancient text was real or actually existed or not.

 

I don't understand why some of you are so sensitive about this. I get the feeling that some of you are biased in favor of the Jewish religion and people.

 

And WITHOUT physical evidence, you can't just ACCEPT ancient texts as FACTUAL history. That's WHY we have archeologists. Part of their job is to verify, with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE the veracity of ancient TEXTS.

 

At some point the weight of textual evidence (which are eye witness statements) validates the existence of an item or event or person. Some texts are more important than others, for example if a single official text from a known king mentions a building or person or event, then its almost certain the building/person/event was real.

Troy was assumed to be myth because it was mentioned in a fictional story (Iliad), but the assumption that everything in the Iliad was myth was grossly false. Many fictional stories are set in factual places and events, and many fictional stories contain a lot of truth about life in those times.

Most of what is known about history is through texts. In fact, the dividing line between "history" and "prehistory" is writing. Before a culture has writing, it is in prehistoric time (prehistoric means before writing), once it has writing then it is in historic time. The transition occurs at different times for different cultures.

 

Yeah, that point is CORROBORATION with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Yeah, only AFTER being corroborated by physical evidence.

There's a difference between KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF.

That difference is that belief is the acceptance of something as fact, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. I'm not saying Solomon's Temple never existed. I'm saying that SCIENTISTS say that there is no archeological EVIDENCE to prove it.

My personal position is that we simply do not KNOW if it actually existed or not, because we do not, as of yet, have enough evidence to.

 

That's not true. After 3,000 years, there may not be any physical evidence. If 100 documents state that they had trade with a city, and that city no longer exists and cannot be found, its safe to say that the city did exist. Verifying an item of history is multifaceted, its a combination of texts, geography, known natural history and human history.

 

see post 335

You seem to be caught up in the Temple, when the subject is much larger.

 

Scientists don't say "it's safe to say". They say there's evidence or there isn't evidence.

 

No, the thread topic is SPECIFICALLY about the Temple.

 

That's not true. Most of what is known about history is through texts. Many things cannot be demonstrated with physical evidence because there is no physical evidence. How did people live, what was their society like, what was daily life like? That's almost exclusively through texts.

Did the pivotal Battle of Salamis take place? There is no physical evidence that it did, only texts which describe it.

There is no physical evidence for most of the wonders of the ancient world, only the pyramid still exists, yet they obviously were real. The Colossus of Rhodes was a navigation aid for 50 years, then fell in an earthquake and lay on its side for 8 centuries until the muslims melted it - there is no piece of the Colossus left, yet it was documented by 100's of texts. Its ridiculous to claim it did not exist, or even to doubt its existence.

 

LOL, wrong. Few things are certain even when there is evidence. Evidence is often inconclusive, particularly in ancient history.

 

This subtopic is about the role of textual evidence.

With respect to the Temple, the Old and New Testaments are ancient literature, just like any other. Evaluating the Old Testament is no different than evaluating any other ancient text. Some people want to ignore those items because they are religious, and those people have a bias against anything religious.

And until excavation of the Temple Mount is permitted, there will be no physical evidence of the First Temple. There is indirect physical evidence from the current muslim construction taking place on the Temple Mount.

 

Thus until then, we can't say that we KNOW it actually existed.

 

A lot of it actually.......
https://nypost.com/2001/04/22/temple-mount-artifacts-looted/

 

Of course that is true. But we do know the second one existed prior to the dome of the rock, for the romans recorded that they destroyed it. And that one little piece of a wall is all that remains.

So roman history recorded its existence. And its destruction in 70 A.D.

 

The "SECOND" temple, that is. This thread is about the FIRST temple.

 

Why do you think the writers of the OT would lie about such a temple? Did they also lie about being captives of Babylon? And why are you interested in the existence, or not, of a first temple? What is your motivation?

And by the way, here is the title of this thread....

 

Or... .could one of the posters here be correct and could the
central temple of the Ezekiel chapters 40 - 48 temple.... be
in another area entirely than the existing Temple Mount?????

I know that this is a strange idea but if it is true that the Ezekiel
chapter 40 central temple is not on the Temple Mount.....
then construction of that temple could begin very, very soon!

There could perhaps also be a second Jerusalem Temple exactly as the
Sanhedrin has been advocating.... because there is an ancient
tradition that a replica of the Ark of the Covenant was made
during the time of King Solomon.



Could there be two Jerusalem Third Temples?

 

One of our posters here on the forum has done an exceptionally impressive job of explaining a possible fulfillment of Ezekiel chapters 40 - 48.


https://galgal.dreamwidth.org/5507.html

 

I am encouraged by the result of this poll on a Latter day Saint discussion forum:

"Should L.D.S. support rebuilding of Jerusalem Third Temple?"

 

Intriguing indeed......

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng

If.... a massive Ezekiel chapter 40 - 48 temple complex is built in Israel.....
or comes down from heaven..... there would need to be
some similar complexes in other nations.... or the orbital pattern of the earth could be thrown off somewhat......

Revelation 21:2

"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Rev 21:16

And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.