There is a lot of Misinformation related to the Archaeological facts about The Temple Mount

I finally started to just read some stuff from those who defend the official mainstream position.  And the people wanting to remove The Temple from the Mount altogether are misrepresenting a lot of facts especially in regards to the Antonia Fortress.

Wherever Antonia was it certainly wasn't the entirety of the Temple Mount.  And it probably may not have been where Jesus was tried before Pilate, and there are etymological issues with identifying the Gabbatha of John 19 with a Rock like the Dome of The Rock's.

One thing I've been noticing for awhile in those supporting the Gihon Spring or Nea Church location flat out ignore Hadrian's Temple to Jupiter when discussing the history since they want to claim nothing else was ever built on the same site.  We know even from a secular pagan gentile source that Hadrain did that, Cassius Dio.  And Jerome says the Statue of Hadrian standing over the Holy of Holies was still there in his day. Jerome identifies it with the Abomination of Desolation of Matthew 24 but still clearly had a Futurist understanding of Revelation.  For that eschatologically influenced reason he might be off on it being exactly where the Holy of Holies was, many think Antiochus's AoD was in the Holy of Holies when in fact 1 Maccabees says it was on the Brazen Altar.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Baalbek Temple built by the same architect so closely resembles the basic lay out of The Temple Mount, with the Hexagonal Court being what become the Dome of The Rock and the Temple proper being the Al Aqsa Mosque.  Though the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas fountain view proponents of whom I have been one in the past are perhaps assuming too much about the location of the Equestrian Statue being the same.

I'd like to see the primary sources on Byzantine Jerusalem's Church of Holy Wisdom discussed by someone without an agenda.  How true is it that it stood where the Dome of the Rock is now and that it was identified with a location relating to the trial(s) of Jesus?

Those who believe the Temple was where the Dome currently is say that spot was identified as such by Muslims right from the time of Umar.  For one the oldest Muslin worship site on the Mount is the Al Aqsa Mosque, the current silver domed building is slightly younger then the Dome of the Rock but it was still where Muslims prayed first.  And even then many scholars now think even that oldest primitive Al Aqsa Mousge doesn't go back to Umar but was founded by Muawiyah.

There is no real detailed contemporary account of what Umar did in Jerusalem.  The account typically used by Gihon Spring proponents is a 14th Century account.  Given my personal theories about the early history of Islam(that it was really just an Ishmaelite form of Christianity originally), I suspect Umar never intended any Mosque to be built in Jerusalem as he wanted it to remain a city for the previous People of The Book and if he prayed anywhere it was only the location just a little east of the Holy Sepulcher.  He captured the city because of his alliance with the Jews and Miaphysite Christians who'd been persecuted by Heraclius.  The Qurran does teach that the Land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel.

Likewise when the Crusaders controlled Jerusalem they called the Al Aqsa Mosque the Temple of Solomon and the Dome of The Rock the Temple of The Lord, The Lord in Christianity is Jesus meaning that name implies a New testament significance.

I'm going to Copy/Paste from The Bordeaus Pilgram (333 AD) via this website.
http://andrewjacobs.org/translations/bordeaux.html

There are in Jerusalem two big pools to the side of the Temple, that is, one to the right, another to the left, which Solomon made, but inside the cite there are two twin pools with five porches, which are called Bethsaida.

There those who have been sick for many years have been healed.

These pools have water which becomes scarlet when disturbed.

There is a crypt there where Solomon tortured demons.

There is the corner of the highest tower, where the Lord went up and he said to the one who was tempting him, and the Lord said to him: Do not tempt the Lord your God, but him only should you serve (Matt 4:7, 10).

There is the cornerstone about which it was said: stone, which the builders reproved, this has been made the head stone (Matt 21:42).

And under the pinnacle of the tower there are many chambers, where Solomon had his palace.

There is also the chamber in which he sat and wrote about wisdom; but the chamber itself has a single stone for its roof.

There are also very great pools of water underground and a great pool built with work.

And in that building where the Temple was, which Solomon built, in the marble before the altar is the blood of Zechariah which you would say was shed today; indeed, there appear to be traces of the soldier's boots, who killed him, throughout the area, such that you would think they had been pressed in wax.

There are two status of Hadrian; not far from the statues is a pierced stone to the Jews comes every year and they anoint it and they lament with a groan and they tear their garments and then they withdraw.

There is the house of Hezekiah, King of Judah.

I have come to believe all of this section is about stuff on The Temple Mount.  After this he heads south out of what was then the city proper where he observed the Pool of Siloam then goes to the Western hill which was considered to be Zion at that time.

The use of the name "Bethsadia" is confusing because the New Testament and Josephus use that of a place not anywhere near Jerusalem.

There are at least two probably three different stones refereed to here. However people confident The Dome is the site of The Temple seem to treat all three as the same and as being the titular Rock under that Dome.  I have my doubts any of them really match that Rock but the best bet is that the modern "Well of Souls" is what this Pilgrim identified as the chamber where Solomon wrote "the book of Wisdom" (whether that is the apocryphal text or they meant Proverbs I won't venture to guess).  This association could explain why a Church built there later was called Holy Wisdom, but again I need an unbiased way to analyze the more obscure primary sources on that Church.

When the Pilgrim says "and in that building where" he's clearly moved to a more specific location and so the stone that will be mentioned last can't be identified with the two prior stones.  Those two stones are explicitly not in The Temple proper.

Identifying the Dome of The Rock as the Temple's Location depends on the "pierced stone" the Jews came to anoint every year (we know elsewhere that day was the 9th of Av, not Yom Kippur as one article I read criticizing Cornuke assumed).  This stone was (believed to be) either a Cornerstone of The Temple or one which was supposed to be where The Ark rested and so probably only slightly larger then The Ark itself, something more like the Stone around which The Church of the Seat of Mary was constructed.  But on second thought this Stone is not actually likely to be where the Holy of Holies was since The Jews have always been adamant about not risking accidentally walking over it.

So yes, I still consider the Dome itself the least likely of spots on The Mount to place The Temple.  I have become more open to the Dome of The Tablets view because that places it directly due west of the Golden Gate.  However the narrative thrust of the Pilgrim's description could be seen as moving southward and thus placing The Temple south of the presumed Chamber that Solomon wrote the Book of Wisdom in.

I am far from making up my mind on this issue.  I'm still attracted to the Nea Church being the site of at least one of The Temples, or maybe David's Tabernacle.

Update: An article called The Byzantine Presence on The Temple Mount arguing for the Gihon Spring view is very misinformed and since fact checking it's claims I now doubt that Saint Sophia/Holy Wisdom was on the Temple Mount.

It once accuses a Wilson of wrongly conflating the Church of the Blessed Mary with the Nea Church of the Theotokos.  However it is in fact well known that both those names were used for the same Church.  Cyril of Scythoplis account of the Church's origin makes clear that Sabas's request was just of a Church for Saint Mary.  It was Justinian who took the prerogative of using the title Theotokos because of his agenda of trying to unify the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite churches while scapegoating the Nestorians.  Both this source and Procopius only refer to Justinian building one Marian Church, and none of this article's sources are aware of the Theotokos Church if they were indeed different.

The Saint Sophia Church is clearly near by and so I'm now thinking was maybe where the Armenian Church of the Archangels is with it's presumed trial location changing.  Carefully reading that article's own sources the "Stone" venerated here that Jesus stood on is clearly a smaller portable "stone" not something like what the Dome is built over.

I personally think the tradition of sealing off the East Gate began in the Byzantine era by Christians who felt it was time to fulfill Ezekiel 46:1 since Jesus had already entered at his Triumphal entry.

Revisiting my Bethlehem as Zion The City of David argument

[Update: this is now a defunct post, I'm back to agreeing entirely with my original argument.]

[Update July 2025: The Better version of this my original argument is here. 

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2023/12/zionthe-city-of-david-wasnt-jerusalem.html]

Was the Second Temple even built on the same location as The First?

As I've repeatedly engaged in the ongoing debate of where The Temple was located, usually favoring the Southern Conjecture.  This question has been in my mind, and I think I even alluded to it on this Blog before, but I've held off on going too deep into that issue.

The Book of Ezra's account of the Second Temple's construction never named Mt Moriah, or refereed to a threshing floor, nor said anything else to indicate they made sure it was the right spot. In fact the only books of The Bible they seem to have consulted were The Torah.  And it had been over 50 years.  Ezra also seems to imply they didn't even know the proper Hebrew language anymore.

And since The Tabernacle had been set up at multiple locations before The Temple, Yahuah may have not cared if it was built on the same spot anyway. 

When Zerubabel's Temple was completed, it's said that the older generation wept because of how unlike the original Temple it was.  This is generally taken to just mean it was inferior in terms of size or magnificence.  But perhaps there is something deeper.

In my investigation into if The Tabernacle and perhaps also Solomon's Temple had a Dome design rather then the Box shape Josephus describes Herod's Temple having.  It has been suggested that perhaps this mourning was partly because the new Temple had the wrong shape and wasn't a Dome.  Perhaps the second Temple's construction was intentionally or subconsciously influenced by Pagan Temples like the one at Ain Dara, since they had spent so much time in exile among Pagans.

But perhaps they were also mourning it being built at the wrong location.  Maybe those two things correlate, if the Temple's shape was changed because it was built on a squared rather then circular foundation?

Solomon also built a magnificent Palace complex for himself, that took nearly twice as long to build as The Temple did.  1 Kings 7:1-12 focuses on this.  What if the site of Solomon's Palace was where the Second Temple was built by mistake?  They assumed the largest ruin in the city was where The Temple was?

The Second Temple I still believe was about where the Al-Kas fountain is, or maybe I could accept the Al Aqsa Mosque view.  But the Dome of The Rock was the Antonia Fortress, of that I'm certain.

Now when I first came to consider this I was working under an assumption many people have that Solomon's Palace was right by The Temple.  Josephus seems to have thought it was to The South of The Temple.  So that had me considering it being where the Al Aqsa Mosque was, and Solomon's Temple at the Al-Kas Fountain.   I'd also thought of looking typologically at Ezekiel's Temple, how the Nasi's house is just west of the Holy of Holies.  But Solomon's palace complex was larger and more complex then that one.

I notice however that Pharaoh's Daughter was moved to her house in II Chronicles 8:11 specifically to keep her at a distance from any place the Ark of the Covenant had been housed.  So now I'm thinking perhaps Solomon's Temple was not in any place we're used to looking for it.  This also refutes a suggestion I've seen that it's a misunderstanding Solomon built a house for himself and that 1 Kings 7 is just elaborating on The Temple complex, since 1 Kings 7 also clearly places the house for Pharaoh's Daughter here.

II Chronicles 3:1 is another important verse for refuting the Temple was in the City of David view.  And perhaps working against it being in Jerusalem proper of David's time at all.

In this verse Mt Moriah is considered part of Jerusalem at this time.  But it's clearly identified as the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, also known as Araunah in II Samuel 24.  Verse 23 of that chapter calls Araunah a King in the Hebrew, Wikipedia accuses English translations of obscuring this fact, but I feel it's implied well enough in the KJV reading.

Both the Samuel and Chronicles accounts of the Plague and buying the Threshing floor clearly place it outside Jerusalem at that time.  David's purchase expanded what was considered part of Jerusalem, but when The Angel of Yahuah held off there, it's presented as approaching but not yet reaching Jerusalem.

Now my past assumptions about what Mount is Mt Moriah would say this must have been north of Jebus.  But the Plague had already afflicted Israel "from Dan to Beersheba" so both to the north and south.  So actually it may have approached from a different direction.  Since the hills east of Jerusalem are where Solomon placed his Idols in 1 Kings 11 (The Mount of Olives), I feel like deducing this was approaching from the West.

I have since taking the Augustus view of Daniel 11:36-45, concluded that the Appeden of Daniel 11:45 is the Antonia fortress.  Appeden is a Persian term that means "Audience Hall", and I've seen people describe one of the buildings mentioned in 1 Kings 7 as part of Solomon's palace as an Audience Hall.  So what if the Antonia Fortress was built over Solomon's Temple?  Maybe Solomon's Judgment Seat in 1 Kings 7:7 is about where Pilate's judgment seat was when he sentenced Jesus?  Which would thus mean it included the Dome of The Rock, but maybe covered the entire Temple Mount.

So, if I'm going to look West for Solomon's Temple, where should we begin?

I decided to look at Maps of modern Jerusalem.

http://www.generationword.com/jerusalem101-photos/2010/jerusalem-map-for-site-location-1500.gif
 http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DRHJ2F/the-plan-of-jerusalem-town-map-layout-DRHJ2F.jpg

South of the Temple Mount is a Circle that is basically what Tradition now calls the City of David, where Bob Cornuke thinks The Temple was.  I have argued the City of David is Bethlehem but do think that site was the Core of the Jebus David originally captured.  David had palaces in both cities.  And I place neither Temple in either.

Wikipedia acknowledges three traditional candidates for the Hill that is Mt Zion.  I think Zion is none of those but in Bethlehem.

The one within the supposed "City of David" is what Bob Cornuke thinks The Temple was built on.  The second is simply applying the term to the main Temple Mount, the traditional Mt Moriah.

The third, the Western hill, which is South of the Armenian Quarter. is a site Christian Tradition has called Mt Zion, and that has it's own claimed site for King David's Tomb (in the same compound as the traditional site of the Upper Room of the Last Supper and Pentecost), but that Jewish tradition knows most certainly was not Zion and probably not part of David's Jerusalem at all. 

Justinian built an important Church on this "Zion", the Nea Ekklesia of The Theotokos, which Porcopius describes in a way that is designed to parallel the account of Solomon's Temple.  It was originally thought to be where the Al Aqsa Mosque is, but we now know it was on the Western Hill.

Earlier was built there the Church of the Holy Apostles (not to be confused with many more famous churches of that name) and the Hagia Sion which is now the Abbey of the Dormition.

Perhaps the Western Hill is the real Mount Moriah and one of these Churches was built where Solomon's Temple was? Since I firmly believe Solomon's Temple would not have been built on the full top of the Hill, I think the Nea possibly fits best.

So, I hope that was enlightening.  This is mostly speculative so I can't be sure of anything yet.

Update October 15th: And the day after posting this, I found that at least someone before me has argued the Nea Ekklesia is where Solomon's Temple was.   Their reasons for coming to this conclusion may be different from mine, I haven't read all of what they've argued yet.  (They mistakenly think The Mercy Seat was a Throne like many.)  They seem to believe the Second Temple was also at this site, which I'm open to.
https://haheykal.wordpress.com/.

I was also off a little on where I thought the Nea was.  It's more where the Jewish and Armenian Quarter meet, between the Zion and Dung gates, and includes the HaTkuma Garden.  This blog places the Holy of Holies under the current Deir al Zeitune Armenian Church, which is an interesting coincidence given it's a Church with a Dome.  According to tradition that Church was the house of High Priest Ananias, which could easily have been near The Temple.  Perhaps High Priests often lived just west of the Holy of Holies to try and fit the imagery of Ezekiel's Temple.

But again, given the starting premise of this post, it could be Ananias house was built over where Solomon's Temple was.

Update October 23rd 2017:

On a website about this Church, it says the Church's traditions also linked it to  2 Samuel 24:16-17 and I Chronicles 21:15-16, which is about the Threshing Floor of Ornan. Seemingly not noticing that that is the site of Solomon's Temple.

The Armenians' traditions also associate Queen Helena and King Abgar with founding the Church at this location, figures who've interested me for a few reasons.  And the Armenian traditional history of the site seems to skip the period when Justinian's Nea Ekklesia would have been here.

I also found a YouTube Video on the Theory.

The Olive Tree associated with this site is also interesting, when you study references to Olive Trees in The Bible. Both literally and symbolically.

Update March 25th 2018: Based on this recent post of mine, I've now sorta switched. I think the Nea Eklessia was where the Second Temple was, and maybe Bob Cornuke's location was Solomon's Temple he's just wrong on how he makes much of that argument.

The Mount of Olives Crucifixion model

I became aware of this model last month, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced of it, but still holding some reservations.  I don't want to rehash how others make the argument, I'll provide some links for that.  But a warning, such links may allude to other views of their authors I don't agree with.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/stunning.html

https://www.vision.org/visionmedia/Bible.history/Golgotha.where.is.it/31293.aspx

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-84-christ-in-the-holy-of-holies-the-meaning-of-the-mount-of-olives/

It appears a key innovator in this theory was Dr. Ernest L. Martin's 280-page book entitled Secrets of Golgotha. It can be found on Amazon, but not currently for a reasonable price. 

Bob Cornuke wants to argue for it as if it specifically proves or is dependent on his model for The Temple's location.  It's not, the issue of the traditional sites being north rather then East of the Temple is the same with all four proposed locations for The Temple.  And the Mount of Olives is actually far enough north to arguably fit a Temple Mount location better then Cornuke's.  I still favor the Al-Kas Fountain view.

John 19:21 tells us the place where Jesus was buried was right by the place He was Crucified.  We also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself.  Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible.  Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea.  Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel.  Why would he have a Tomb near Jerusalem?  Well let's get into that.

Zechariah 14:4-5 has lead many Jews to conclude that The Resurrection of The Dead will begin at the Mount of Olives.  I'm not sure why that is, I don't see the Resurrection in that verse.  But because of this many Jews have wanted to be buried on the Mount of Olives.  (Mount of Olives description, from www.goisrael.com, retrieved January 4, 2012.)  And it seems this tendency dates back to before the Time of Christ.  So that makes the Mount of Olives the most likely place for someone like Joseph of Arimathea to have a Tomb built.

I've also been exploring on this blog the idea that most of Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled from 30-70 AD.  What if the Earthquake caused by The Messiah standing on the Mont of Olives is either the Earthquake associated with the Death of Jesus, or the one that rolled the Stone away at His Resurrection?

That would mean the Resurrection did begin there, first with Jesus but then also as Matthew 27:51-53 says many others who's tombs were split open by that Earthquake soon after.  Which I feel ties into Daniel 12, the only other passage on the Resurrection that says "many" rather then all.

The Biblical designation "Mount of Corruption", or in Hebrew Har HaMashchit (I Kings 11:7–8), derives from the idol worship there, begun by King Solomon building altars to the gods of his Moabite and Ammonite wives on the southern peak, "on the mountain which is before (east of) Jerusalem" (1 Kings 11:7), just outside the limits of the holy city. This site was known for idol worship throughout the First Temple period, until king of Judah, Josiah, finally destroyed "the high places that were before Jerusalem, to the right of Har HaMashchit..."(II Kings 23:13)

Ezekiel 11:23 says "And the glory of Yahuah went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.".  That would be the Mount of Olives.

Zechariah compares this Earthquake to the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah.  That Earthquake according to Josephus Antiquities IX 10:4 ( about 2 Chronicles 26) also involved the Temple being rent. Meanwhile, there is archeological evidence Uzziah's body might have wound up among those buried on the Mount of Olives, the Uzziah Tablet.

In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.

And if you think Uzziah's action sounds like a good type of the Antichrist or the False Prophet.  Well Daniel 12 implies this Resurrection will include some who wind up in the Lake of Fire also.

Update October 22nd 2017:  I may abandon this.

Mark 15:37-39 is the key to the Mount of Olives view.  I get why it seems to many to say the Centurion (who's probably not the same soldier who pierced him in John 19) must have seen the Veil being torn, putting them to the East of The Temple.  However verse 39 is pretty specific that Jesus crying out and giving up the Ghost is what the Centurion saw to cause this reaction.  The fact that he died at that exact moment by his own will is what impressed this Roman Solider, who was probably raised to value controlling one's own death.  He wouldn't have cared about a decoration in the Jewish Temple.

And with that smoking gun weakened, and my dependence on extra-Biblical sources here.  And that the NT does clearly refer to the Mount of Olives in other places when something happens there.  Has caused me to come to doubt this view now.

As far as Hebrews 13:11-12 and it's comparison to Jesus Crucifixion as where the "Without the camp" reference.  They are forgetting Exodus 33:7 says the Tabernacle as without the Camp.  I don't think the intent of this verse is to be a clue to the geography of Jesus Crucifixion.

Update: March 16th 2018: Red Heifer

I've been looking into the Red Heifer issue lately.  I had went past me before that Number 19 which Hebrews 13:12-13 is assumed to be quoting is the Red Heifer passage.  I still don't think Hebrews says enough to make us certain that's what's referring to.  But we do now know archeologically that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer sacrifice was performed during the Second Temple period.

My theory that Jesus was Crucified where Solomon's Temple was, is perhaps weakened by my observation that the New Testament never particularly approves of Solomon.  But not entirely.  I"m still uncertain about much of this.

Actually I can now argue that Hebrews 13:11-13 being a clue to the location of the Crucifixion can fit other models.  Because regardless of where the Second Temple traditions said to do it.  The "Without the Camp" of Numbers 19 isn't that far without, because it also says to sprinkle blood at the entrance to the Tabernacle.

Plus no matter what Jesus was outside what the city limits of Jerusalem were at the time.

So I've still come to reject this theory.

Further Update March 19th 2018: Bethany

BTW, Bethany is on the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:29), so Lazarus Resurrection could be said to fulfill an expectation that the Resurrection begins there.

But that reminds me that my post trying to argue that maybe Jesus was crucified much further from Jerusalem then often assumed discussed how "nigh to Jerusalem" is used of both the Crucifixion location and Bethany.  So that becomes an interesting connection.

Actually my reasoning for the Crucifixion where Solmon's Temple was theory is deteriorating.

Update December 2018:  Even though this sin't my main post on the Mt of Olives model anymore, I want to copy/paste this here which I decided to remove from the Bethlehem is Zion post.

Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however.  Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general.  But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah.  And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David.  So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.

Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20.  2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash.  Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16.  So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.

Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem.  Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.

The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah.  This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to the Uzziah Tablet.

In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.

Being buried on the Mount of Olives, is pretty interesting.

Solomon's Temple was NOT in the City of David.

If you think it was, I suggest you read 1 Kings 8:1, the account of The Ark being placed in The Temple.

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahuah out of the city of David, which is Zion."

And also 2 Chronicles 5:2

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahuah out of the city of David, which is Zion."

David's Tabernacle was not on the same land as Solomon's Temple, that's where these "The Temple wasn't on The Temple Mount" people are confused.

The land that Solomon built The Temple on, David purchased after the whole Census and Plague episode recorded in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, (and referenced again in 2 Chronicles 3:1).  So it can't possibly be the same spot near the Gihon Spring where David placed The Ark when he began his reign in Jerusalem.

In 2 Samuel 24:23, though English translations sometimes obscure this, Araunah (Ornan in Chronicles) is called a King.  He was the King of a separate Kingdom, so the land he owned was clearly not within The City of David.

There are also many reasons why you wouldn't put a threshing floor anywhere near a spring.

Now I don't know if the Second Temple was on the same spot as the first.  But I believe the evidence places the Second Temple's Holy of Holies about where the Al-Kas Fountain currently is, and that the Antonia Fortress was where the Dome of The Rock is.

Prophetic verses get used to back up saying there is a spring or river under The Temple.  Ezekiel 40-48's Temple will be no where near the same spot as Solomon's, it's miles north of Jerusalem, I've argued about where Beth-El was. And by then events like the 7th Bowl of Wrath will have totally changed the geography of the region.

In both Poetic and Prophetic books Zion gets used poetically, it doesn't always mean it's strict Geographical definition it has in the two verses that started this post.

More on The Southern Conjecture

I want to clarify that my support for the Southern Conjecture view is independent of how it may or may not tie into Eschatology.  I'm not even confident anymore the Third Temple will be built on the same place (Revelation 11 is the only reason I'm certain it's in Jerusalem and not somewhere else like Shiloh, Shechem or Bethel where Ezekiel's Temple will be).  If it is built on a High Place like where the Dome of The Rock now is that'll just be further proof The Temple the Man of Sin will violate was never truly of God.

My views on End Times Prophecy have shifted since I made the first Southern Conjecture related post on this blog.  For one that was originally devised when I was much more convinced then I have been recently of the Mahdi=Antichrist view.  But even more recently I've perhaps become less hostile to it as my fondness for Chris White's view has waned.

But more importantly I brought Daniel 11:36-45 into it a great deal.  I now no longer view that as End Times.

I do state during that Daniel 11 study that I think the Appeden refers to the Antonia Fortress. Which I view as having been where the Dome of The Rock is now.  Reasons for that are argued for by other Southern Conjecture supporters here.  The Antonia fortress was the seat of Roman Government within Jerusalem.

Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 12 Chapter 5 clearly describes there being a hill overlooking The Temple, and on that hill Antiochus Epiphanies built a fortification.

Between the Antonia Fortress and the Dome of The Rock it was Hadrian's Temple Complex.  Looking at the pictures of how they line up, I'm not an expert on Roman Temples but it looks like the Jupiter Temple proper was where the Al Aqsa Mosque is, I'm not sure what that circular area over the Rock would be.  If anyone would like to explain it to me feel free to leave a comment.

I don't know what was there if anything before the Antonia Fortress.  I must correct my past statements about wherever Solomon placed his Idols to Chemosh and Moloch.  Apparently that was probably the Mount of Olives.

I also want to reiterate my view that the Giihon Spring site being advocated now by Bob Conruke was where the Tabernacle of David stood.  The site of Solomon's Temple David didn't buy till after the Census and the Plague and Absolam's death.  The Ark remained in the Tabernacle of David all through the construction of Solomon's Temple.

I still support the Southern Conjecture

I have a post where I originally explained my support for the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas Fountain view.  And then another one where I deal with one particular objection to it's Escatological significance.

Latter I did a post in response to some new information I learned where I considered changing to the Gihon Spring view of The Temple's location.  That post was made and revised as my mind was being pretty chaotic on the subject and it still seemed clear I wasn't really gonna do that.  All the reasons for  rejecting that view I hold now are explained there, or in links provided there.

So I am just making this post to clarify.  I believe the Temple was where the Al-Kas fountain is.  But the Gihon Spring is interesting and I think probably the Location of the Tabernacle of David.

The Impossibility of something happening is the least valid argument against a Prophetic interpretation.

Now what I mean here is impossible, or implausible, in secular terms.  That it could happen based on our observable contemporary situation. If you think it's impossible for a Biblical reason that's different.

Chris White is someone I discovered only a few months ago. I find many of his arguments good, they've helped me make new insights. Ironically, how well he argues for his Pre-Wrath position makes me more secure in my Mid-Trib position.

I like his approach even when expressing views I disagree with. But one annoyance I have with hearing him argue against certain popular views on Bible Prophecy is how much time he devotes to saying something couldn't happen, or is highly improbable to happen.

Sometimes he does this arguing against views I also don't agree with. Like viewing The Pope as The Antichrist or The False Prophet. The former I consider completely invalid, the latter highly unlikely.   I'm against using that argument even in those cases, I want to be consistent.

He also uses it when arguing against the view that the Southern Conjecture/Al-Kas Fountain view of The Temple's location is correct, and that the Third Temple will be rebuilt with both the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of The Rock still standing.

He claims that even if neither the Mosque or the Dome would have to be damaged, that Muslims still could never accept having a Temple where animal sacrifices are going on exist even within the vicinity of those sites. So the only way for The Temple to be rebuild is for Muslims to completely lose the ability to have any say in the matter.  [Update: turns out he was wrong on ANimal Sacrifice in Islam]

Well the problem is for most of the Church Age (around 500 A.D. to WWI) even the basics of the End Time scenario seemed impossible to ever happen. It seemed impossible Israel would ever be given their land back, much less rebuild The Temple. That's why the mainstream approach all through those periods was to allegorize everything, even the most basic stuff.  It was only after the Protestant reformaiton that any dissenters insisting Israel will be established began to emerge.  But they were the minority even among Protestants.

And even without considering for the Supernatural, in Geo-politics things that seemed impossible have happened many times. The United States of America has a Black President right now, only 10 years ago that still seemed an impossibility.

I'd say it's an inherent sign of a lack of Faith if the only Prophetic predictions you think are valid are the ones that are plausible. Indeed every Prophecy for which both the foretelling and fulfillment is recorded in Scripture seemed laughably unlikely to the Kings the Prophets gave them to.

So I don't care how impossible some think it is that any Muslims would accept the arrangement of The Temple being rebuilt between the Mosque and the Dome. I believe that's the picture The Bible paints. No it's not clearly laid out in one single passage, but neither is The Trinity, or Israel fleeing to Edom. It fits various Biblical clues all put together like a perfect puzzle, and all the other explanations of each of those verses fails in my view.

So therefore I have faith that it WILL happen, no matter how Impossible it is. If things happen differently that won't phase me because it doesn't effect the Gospel. I'm Dogmatic on only the most indisputable things, like that The Temple must be rebuild, and the Abomination of Desolation will happen. But of all the conjectural views of Bible Prophecy I have, this is the one I view as the most solid.

No matter what Antichrist theory turns out to be true, this scenario I think this is compatible.  In terms of Chris White's False Christ claiming to be messiah Ben-Joseph theory.  There is no reason to rule out such a figure trying to to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully before he's forced to wage war on them.

As far as why it's implausible to Christ White. Well I don't necessarily think all Muslims will accept it, I think there will still be lots of Middle East tension during this time. All The Willful King's Wars recorded in Daniel 11:40-45 I think will likely happen while the Third Temple is standing and it's sacrifices being carried out during the first half of the 70th Week.

But it's the Jordanian Hashamite dynasty who actually controls the Mount, and their pretty moderate right now. Their very cooperative with the U.N.. and the Club of Rome. And the West constantly forces things on the Muslim world they should know better then to think they'd be OK with.

Frankly the greater obstacle to me is getting the leading Jews in Israel to accept that the official view of where The Temple stood is wrong. To me the official view is Biblically impossible for many (non eschatological) reasons. But none the less all the Rabbis in Israel are emotionally married to it.

The Dome of The Rock and the Southern Conjecture

I favor the Southern conjecture of The Temple’s location. Threshing floors were never on mountain tops for one thing, and God commanded Israel NOT to build altars on High Places as the pagans did.

Hadrian had a huge Temple complex to Jupiter built over the entire modern Temple Mount site. Ancient sources say he had a huge Equestrian Statue of himself built over where the Holy of Holies had been. The same Architect built another Temple to Jupiter at Baalbek using the same design. That complex still exists, and a diagram of it fits over the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem perfectly, putting the Equestrian stature where the Al-Kas fountain is, not over either Mosque.
Temple Mount Southern Conjecture Pictures

So I think the future peace plan will have the Al-Kas fountain moved and have The Temple rebuilt between the two Mosques. This fits Revelation 11’s model of the outer court given to the Gentiles perfectly.

Also when Daniel 11:45 says “And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain;” I don’t think this is the Abomination of Desolation yet, because his “death” that leads to his counterfeit resurrection happens next “yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”

The word translated “palace” here is only ever used in Scripture this one time, ‘appeden (ap-peh’-den); Noun, Strong #: 643. Upon further study it’s actually a Persian loan word (Daniel by this time had no doubt picked up a lot of Persian in the third year of Cyrus), from apadana which means “audience hall”.

That is not an accurate description of The Holy Place of the Jewish Temple, which is confined and not public. When The Abomination of Desolation happens the whole world will be be able to see because the Man of Sin will brings news media with him, but it’s design is not to be an “audience hall”. And I don’t think Daniel would have used a gentile non Hebrew word to describe The Temple, this is clearly a Gentile place of worship.

I think he’ll actually place a Throne of sorts on the Rock venerated under the Dome of The Rock. The Dome of The Rock isn't like most Mosques, in fact I’m not sure it’s really considered one at all. In-spite of them usually not allowing cameras in it’s a much more open public area, it could easily serve as an “audience hall”.

I will share some facts I considered interesting back when I learned toward the Mahdi view.  There is no doubt much I always disagreed with here, but it says the entire design of the Dome of The Rock was about it’s Prophetic significance to Muslims.

  http://www.academia.edu/913208/The_Meaning_of_the_Dome_of_the_Rock-published_The_Islamic_Quarterly_Fall_1999
the Muslim Dome of the Rock commemorated an event (rather a connected series of events)which was (and still is) future—the Resurrection, Judgment, and final rule of God upon earth. This is why the Dome of the Rock remains a mystery from the art historical point of reference—commemoration looks to the past—but here, in the first great structure of Islam, the commemoration is eschatological and thus points to the future.-
Muslims also believe, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and other sources, that prior to the occurrence of the Resurrection and the Last Judgment,
Mekkah’s
black stone will come to the holy city of Jerusalem, as a bride to her husband, to perform a circumambulation around the Rock which the Dome covers. Then the angel of death,
Israfil
, will blow his trumpet—the last trumpet—and this will initiate the resurrection day.
[Busse, Sanctity, 468, n.141]
This Qur’anic statement is inexplicable if early Islam is to be understood in the same way as modern Islam is comprehended in its separation or distinction from the former faiths. However, if we accept the eschatological solution to the mystery of the origin of the Dome of the Rock, this Qur’anic statement becomes comprehensible.
The eschatological associations, which the Dome of the Rock possesses, are enunciated even in its inscriptions. For example, the inscription on the northeast outer ambulatory states,
To Him belongs dominion and to Him belongs praise. He gives life and He makes to die; He is powerful over all things.
[conflation of Qur’an 64:1 and 57:2]
Muhammad is God’s messenger, may God bless him and accept his intercession on the day of resurrection for his community.[Encyclopaedia of Islam, 267][emphasis mine]-
The Umayyards created a suitable covering over this Rock upon which the Judgment of the World would commence, and surrounded it with the crowns of those who must present themselves before God after the Resurrection. [See Figure 4,page 15]

I obviously don’t expect much of this to be literally fulfilled, and they don’t directly mention the Mahdi. But the key is it’s association with the Resurrection. While for Christians the Resurrection began with Jesus, for Muslims it will begin when Isa resurrects the Mahdi. So it’s easy to speculate that the Mahdi will reign from here publicly for a bit, be assassinated here, and his body entombed here until his counterfeit resurrection.

I think this significance for the Dome of the Rock could also tie into Isaiah 14’s talk of the Abominable Branch being cast out of his sepulcher/buryingplace/grave.  And Daniel 9:27’s talk of the desolating abomination spreading from a Wing of The Temple, which some have already seen linked to the Outer Court reference of Revelation 11.

I do believe the Beast’s receiving his Mortal Wound must be very Public, as Public as JFK’s assassination if the whole world can wonder at it’s healing without doubt it was purely supernatural. And so must it’s healing. So an “Audience Hall” is a fitting location.

I of course am no longer as sold on the Mahdi Antichrist theory, I was for awhile (when I wrote the first draft of this).  But it can work with other theories too.  Since it was built non Muslims have used The Dome of The Rock when they controlled the area.  Like the Knights Templars.

I've studied Chris White's False Christ theory, it's compelling though certain details I can't accept.  I could see a Jewish Leader, or Ally claiming to be messiah Ben-Joseph also making a makeshift "Audience Hall" out of it after retaking control of the Temple Mount.  But I suspect this is a change in control of the site that would happen after The Temple was already built.