Third Temple / Ark of the Covenant

Regarding the ark, does anyone who touches it still drop dead?

One of the only Great questions so far on this thread..

As far as what I have learned there are a few arks three of which are under the Knights Templar's worship sight - at Roslyn Chapel - Scotland.
The Other is guarded 24/7 in Ethopia by a Monk in a special Monestary.

The original (perhaps others too) is/was a giant capacitor and yes could certainly kill anyone who touched the two wings on top.

To add my own personal twist, I think the great Pyramid (Kings Chamber)was used as a recharge station for the Pharo-version of the same 'lichen' jar capacitor as Mose's Ark of the Covenant.

Dallas

Interesting news on the Ark of the Covenant subject. It seems that an archeoligist named Vendyl Jones claims he will locate the Ark by sometime this August. This may yet turn out to be nothing, but read this article and see what you think. Very interesting article which gets into a bit of prophecy that Vendyl seems to have uncovered.

Also is it true that this guy Vendyl Jones is the inspiration for Indiana Jones and Raders of the Lost Ark?



EDIT: I just noticed that there is an ATSNN article on this story. Should have looked there first.

[edit on 31-5-2005 by dbates]

How many times does the temple need to be built before those who believe in the apocalyspse can count past two?

I don't believe in the apocalypse and can count past two.

Solomon: built same the first time. (1)
Nebuzaradan burnt it to cinders
It was built for a second time by Zerubabbel. (2)
Destroyed again by Pompey
Rebuilt by Herod The Great. (3)
Three temples have come and gone. It is over!

The rebuild by Herod is still the second temple. Herod refurbished it and even made additions to it. My father in law is a project manager for a construction company. Currently, he is working on a school where there was some demolition work and there will be some rebuilding and additions. The school is not being completely leveled therefore, the parts that are taken out are being rebuilt. Is it a new school? No. It's the same school that is having some construction work done on it. See below. Herod made extensive repairs and also remodeled, thus he rebuilt.

Main Entry: re·build
Pronunciation: (")rE-'bild
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·built /-'bilt/; -build·ing
Date: 1537
transitive senses
1 a : to make extensive repairs to : RECONSTRUCT b : to restore to a previous state
2 : to make extensive changes in : REMODEL
intransitive senses
: to build again
synonym see MEND

Supposed warning on old structure:
No Gentile is to be approach within the balustrade
round the Temple and the peribolos.
Whosoever is caught will be guilty of his own death
which will follow.

There were actually two warnings posted several places throughout the Temple and they were real. One was, "It shall be lawful for no foreigner to come within the limits of the temple round about; which this is forbidden also to the Jews, unless to those who, according to their own custom, have purified themselves." The second was "No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade and embankment around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which follows." Antiochus III published the first in honor of the Temple throughout his kingdom. The Gentiles would have been able to enter the outer courts for the non-Jews. As for the second warning, throughout the Bible, the theme of don't assimilate runs rampant. Jews are taught in Leviticus 19.30 "You shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary: I am the Lord." This is one of the 613 mitzvot and must be kept. Back then, assimilation led to idol worship, G-d's anger, etc.

Regarding the ark, does anyone who touches it still drop dead?

Not everyone who touched it to begin with died. The Levites were the ones who were allowed to touch it.

Also is it true that this guy Vendyl Jones is the inspiration for Indiana Jones and Raders of the Lost Ark?

He says, 'No.'

No one touched the Ark itself. Two wooden poles were used to carry it, but yes, the Levites were the "Ark bearers".

By the way, thanks for pointing out my article dbate...

[edit on 31-5-2005 by BadMojo]

Originally posted by BadMojo
No one touched the Ark itself. Two wooden poles were used to carry it, but yes, the Levites were the "Ark bearers".

By the way, thanks for pointing out my article dbate...

[edit on 31-5-2005 by BadMojo]

Actually, in 1 Chronicles 13 (King James Version) 9-10 states that:

9 And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.
10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.

1 Chronicles 13 (King James Version)

Ok, ok...yes there are those that have touched the Ark, but no one has done so and LIVED...

I don't believe this would happen today, if it were found. God's no longer resides in the Ark of the Covenant, which was why those who touched the Ark were smitten...and don't mean "fell in love"

[edit on 31-5-2005 by BadMojo]

Originally posted by Shonet1430I don't believe in the apocalypse and can count past two.

The rebuild by Herod is still the second temple. Herod refurbished it and even made additions to it.

The operative word here is “rebuild.”

Solomon built the temple using stone where the walls and floors of the rooms were lined with wood. 1 KGS 6:7:8.

Nebuzaradan raised it by fire. II KGS 25:9

Zerubbabel rebuilt same and laid new foundation.

Using your line of thinking thus far then, this is not the second temple since the stone would not have been destroyed by the fire. Yet, Zerubbabel’s temple is considered the second.

During the Macabbeen revolt, and by Antiochus’ direction, the temple walls were levelled. Ant. XII:ix Between his assault on the city walls as well as Pompey’s on the temple, such destruction is far greater than that of the fire, yet the fire damage is considered to be the first destruction of the temple. This is the second destruction of the temple.

Herod removed all of the old foundations with the purpose of rebuilding the temple to the splendour of Solomon’s. Ant. XV:iii.

This, a complete rebuilding of the temple, is the third.

Further, in an attempt to fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, and after Antiochus destroyed the temple, Onias fled to Ptolemy in Egypt to build another. In total, there were four temples, where Onias’ is not considered a prophecy come true.

My father in law is a project manager for a construction company. Currently, he is working on a school where there was some demolition work and there will be some rebuilding and additions. The school is not being completely leveled therefore, the parts that are taken out are being rebuilt. Is it a new school? No. It's the same school that is having some construction work done on it. See below. Herod made extensive repairs and also remodeled, thus he rebuilt.

Did I previously mention new somewhere?

The below is edited from your offering on the definition of rebuld

2 : to make extensive changes in : REMODEL
intransitive senses
: to build again
synonym see MEND

Therefore, if you wish to exclude Herod's temple as a rebuild, then you must also exclude Zerubbabels, in which case, you are two shy of your next temple goal and in disagreement with even the staunchest Jews as to this being the second; which by default can only mean you lean toward new. Now I have no idea why one stoops to posting definitions on the internet, especially when it is not in their favour, because I have yet to witness anyone in a face to face conversation, haul out a dictionary definition in an effort to bolster their case.

And thank you for providing the words of the other warning. I focus on the message of that which I gave...gentiles keep out, you are not welcome in this house of God!

The operative word here is “rebuild.”

Indeed.

Solomon built the temple using stone where the walls and floors of the rooms were lined with wood. 1 KGS 6:7:8.
Nebuzaradan raised it by fire. II KGS 25:9
Zerubbabel rebuilt same and laid new foundation.

I'll agree with this.

Using your line of thinking thus far then, this is not the second temple since the stone would not have been destroyed by the fire. Yet, Zerubbabel’s temple is considered the second.

New foundation was laid. It was a fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. Zerubbabel's temple was larger and modest. The second temple also coincided with the second exile.

During the Macabbeen revolt, and by Antiochus’ direction, the temple walls were levelled.

This portion has to do with Hanukkah. The walls weren't leveled. The temple was desecrated. In 168 BCE, the Temple was seized and used for worshipping Zeus. Pigs were being sacrificed on the altar. Idols were brought into the Temple. Research on Chanukkah will show this. The Temple was reclaimed by the Jews in 165 BCE. Wouldn't Maccabees say something about the walls being leveled? Or the Tanakh? Or the Talmud? That's rather important information yet it comes only from Josephus.

Between his assault on the city walls as well as Pompey’s on the temple, such destruction is far greater than that of the fire, yet the fire damage is considered to be the first destruction of the temple. This is the second destruction of the temple.

There seems to be a flaw in your timeline and facts. Antiochus and Pompey were quite a long time away from one another. Also Pompey didn't damage the temple. The day after he entered it, he ordered it cleansed and appointed a Hellenistic High Priest. Titus ordered the destruction of the Temple, the second temple that had some new architectural elements thanks to Herod but was still religiously Zerubbabel's.

168 BCE-Antiochus desecrated the Temple
165 BCE-Jews took Temple back
163 BCE-Antiochus died
106 BCE-Pompey born
63 BCE-War with Romans begins with Pompey damaging city walls and entering Temple
49 BCE-Roman Civil War breaks out and Pompey is defeated by Caesar
48 BCE-Pompey dies
25 BCE-Herod begins renovations
20 CE-Temple complete
66 CE-Rebellion begins
70 CE-Destruction of the second temple

Herod removed all of the old foundations with the purpose of rebuilding the temple to the splendour of Solomon’s. Ant. XV:iii.

Josephus seems to be the only one saying that links Herod with complete new construction. The only new construction that Herod did was expanding the Temple Mount.

This, a complete rebuilding of the temple, is the third.

He fixed/renovated/mended/repaired, expanded/added to/built on to.

Further, in an attempt to fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, and after Antiochus destroyed the temple, Onias fled to Ptolemy in Egypt to build another. In total, there were four temples, where Onias’ is not considered a prophecy come true.

Well let's see, Maybe because when Onias built his, Zerubbabel's was still standing. Maybe because the temple periods have to do with periods of exile. Maybe because Onias misinterpreted the scriptures.

Did I previously mention new somewhere?

No I did.

The below is edited from your offering on the definition of rebuld
2: to make extensive changes in: REMODEL
intransitive senses
:to build again
synonym see MEND

Herod remodeled, built again the splendor of Solomon and mended. All of the above applies.

Therefore, if you wish to exclude Herod's temple as a rebuild, then you must also exclude Zerubbabels, in which case, you are two shy of your next temple goal and in disagreement with even the staunchest Jews as to this being the second; which by default can only mean you lean toward new.

Not true. Zerubbabel didn't mend or fix the Temple. He built a new one. Furthermore, I'm not shy anything. I'm right on par.

Now I have no idea why one stoops to posting definitions on the internet, especially when it is not in their favour, because I have yet to witness anyone in a face to face conversation, haul out a dictionary definition in an effort to bolster their case.

Who stooped? The definition of rebuild was in my favor as shown above. Understanding the English language is powerful when presenting a case.

And thank you for providing the words of the other warning. I focus on the message of that which I gave...gentiles keep out, you are not welcome in this house of God!

That's not true. That's like saying women weren't. There were separate sections for each set of people.

Originally posted by Shonet1430
New foundation was laid. It was a fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. Zerubbabel's temple was larger and modest. The second temple also coincided with the second exile.

ME: Using your line of thinking thus far then, this is not the second temple since the stone would not have been destroyed by the fire. Yet, Zerubbabel’s temple is considered the second.

New foundation was laid. It was a fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. Zerubbabel's temple was larger and modest. The second temple also coincided with the second exile.

A new foundation was laid, and so you agree then that this was the second temple. The prophecy has nothing to do with the number we are trying to determine. Nor what feats the events pertain to, as those events are provided to show destruction.

The walls weren't leveled. The temple was desecrated.

Oh but they were leveled. I quote from Josephus

But when Antiochus came into it, and saw how strong the place was, he broke his oaths, and ordered his army that was there to pluck down the walls to the ground; and when he had so done, he returned to Antioch….

Now there was a sedition of the men that were within the city, who did not agree what was to be done in their present circumstances, while some thought it best to deliver up the city to Pompey; but Aristobulus's party exhorted them to shut the gates, because he was kept in prison. Now these prevented the others, and seized upon the temple, and cut off the bridge which reached from it to the city, and prepared themselves to abide a siege; but the others admitted Pompey's army in, and delivered up both the city and the king's palace to him. So Pompey sent his lieutenant Piso with an army, and placed garrisons both in the city and in the palace, to secure them, and fortified the houses that joined to the temple, and all those which were more distant and without it. And in the first place, he offered terms of accommodation to those within; but when they would not comply with what was desired, he encompassed all the places thereabout with a wall, wherein Hyrcanus did gladly assist him on all occasions; but Pompey pitched his camp within [the wall], on the north part of the temple, where it was most practicable; but even on that side there were great towers, and a ditch had been dug, and a deep valley begirt it round about, for on the parts towards the city were precipices, and the bridge on which Pompey had gotten in was broken down….

But when the battering-engine was brought near, the greatest of the towers was shaken by it, and fell down, and broke down a part of the fortifications,…

Obviously those events don’t count as destruction as far as you are concerned. Moving on therefore; you accept the “new foundation” by Zerubbabel supports his building the second temple, yet;

AND now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign, and after the acts already mentioned, undertook a very great work, that is, to build of himself the temple of God, (22) and make it larger in compass, and to raise it to a most magnificent altitude,…
So Herod took away the old foundations, and laid others, and erected the temple upon them,

You cannot in all honesty accept Zerubbabel’s new foundation as a building number 2, and deny Herod’s new foundation as building number 3. All we need to know about the Brand new third temple can be found in Ant. XV.

I can understand the Jews not wanting to acknowledge Herod’s temple because of what the man represented during his reign, but they, like the Christians use the destruction of this very temple, Herod’s to speak of the last destruction of same.

Three temples: Solomon’s Zerubbabel’s and Herod’s were built and destroyed

There seems to be a flaw in your timeline and facts. Antiochus and Pompey were quite a long time away from one another. Also Pompey didn't damage the temple.

It matters little the timeline as long as the temple had not been rebuilt between events, is that not so? And as you can see above, he did damage same, not only by his battering rams, but also by fire, which I did not bother to post.

Relative to:168 BCE-Antiochus desecrated the Temple
165 BCE-Jews took Temple back..

etc., I prefer not to base my assertions on the interpretation of others when I can read the same sources as they. I have not told you anything which you cannot verify for yourself from said source.

Josephus seems to be the only one saying that links Herod with complete new construction. The only new construction that Herod did was expanding the Temple Mount.

Then show me the works of anyone of Israeli or Hebrew authority that claims Herod’s temple to be a fictitious rendering and I promise you I will objectively review same and alter my position if said discount is sound. As you can see from the excerpts I have provided and more so from the text itself, Herod built a temple in its entirety.

Well let's see, Maybe because when Onias built his, Zerubbabel's was still standing. Maybe because the temple periods have to do with periods of exile. Maybe because Onias misinterpreted the scriptures.

It does not matter what presumption we may make about why Onias built his. The prophecy does not claim that someone will build a temple to try and fulfill prophecy, or that so and so only will build same. This is the underlying fault with all such predictions. They cannot be rationalized or discounted or second-guessed to suit our needs. If in fact the prophecy is true, then the 3rd temple was built over 2,000 years ago and destroyed a century later.

Therefore, if you wish to exclude Herod's temple as a rebuild, then you must also exclude Zerubbabels, in which case, you are two shy of your next temple goal and in disagreement with even the staunchest Jews as to this being the second; which by default can only mean you lean toward new.

Not true. Zerubbabel didn't mend or fix the Temple. He built a new one. Furthermore, I'm not shy anything. I'm right on par.

Decide then, was Zerubbabel’s new and considered the 2nd temple, or new and not considered the 2nd temple? Should you choose the latter, then the 2nd temple is still to be built. So why are people waiting for the 3rd?

The definition of rebuild was in my favor as shown above. Understanding the English language is powerful when presenting a case.

Yes quite, and when one hauls out a dictionary definition in an attempt to make one’s case, it means they themselves had to go fishing for understanding.

And thank you for providing the words of the other warning. I focus on the message of that which I gave...gentiles keep out, you are not welcome in this house of God!

That's not true. That's like saying women weren't. There were separate sections for each set of people.

What is not true? The statement I made that such was supposedly written, or the warning itself?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Yes quite, and when one hauls out a dictionary definition in an attempt to make one’s case, it means they themselves had to go fishing for understanding.

Is this not the same as the pot calling the kettle black?

Originally posted by mercury19

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Yes quite, and when one hauls out a dictionary definition in an attempt to make one’s case, it means they themselves had to go fishing for understanding.

Is this not the same as the pot calling the kettle black?

I don't know unless you show me the pot and the kettle.

I look forward to your edification.

A new foundation was laid, and so you agree then that this was the second temple.

Yes, Zerubbabel's was the second. And the events do have to do with the temples as they are a part of the exiles.

I quote from Josephus

Josephus is the ONLY writer to say the walls were leveled. It's not in the Talmud and it's not in the Tanakh. It's not anywhere but having to do with Josephus, the man whose writings as far as Jesus is concerned appears to be tampered with. Taking that into consideration, nothing else of his can be taken seriously IMO until his credibility is establish.

It matters little the timeline as long as the temple had not been rebuilt between events, is that not so? And as you can see above, he did damage same, not only by his battering rams, but also by fire, which I did not bother to post.

Ok let me clear this up for you. I'm aware of what Pompey did and how he got into the Temple, Zerubbabel's. Each temple building had to do with an exile. There are three, hence there will be three temples. It does not matter how many times a temple gets built according to prophecy, if there is no exile, it doesn't matter. So let's take Herod's into consideration and say that Josephus is the most credible witness to ever live. There was no exile, therefore his temple has no bearing on the Jewish people. Onias...same thing. Zerubbabel's temple was still standing and the Jews were not in exile. So the temple building and exiles go hand in hand with prophecy.

Decide then, was Zerubbabel’s new and considered the 2nd temple, or new and not considered the 2nd temple?

Zerubbabel's was the second temple. Period.

Should you choose the latter, then the 2nd temple is still to be built. So why are people waiting for the 3rd?

The third is promised to be built by the moshaich. He is to lay the cornerstone of the temple and will be the ruler of the Jews and will do so from that very temple. In that time period, there are many other things promised such as death ending, resurrection of the dead, the enemy will have been buried, wars will stop, Jews will all be in Israel, nations will be supporting Israel financially, people will be coming to Jews for guidance, etc. There are few Jews that place a lot of importance on this. We are taught that it's about living a better life and making the world a better place for the moshaich to come to. If there is a moshaich, it doesn't matter to me. If there isn't, same. If I see a third temple, wonderful. If not, oh well. Part of some prayer books pray for the rebuilding of the temple. Each year at Passover, you wish each one to see them in Jerusalem the following year. But we as Jews are still in exile (hence the ingathering of Jews when the moshaich arrives) and there has not been that ingathering yet and there is no moshaich to lay the cornerstone.

Yes quite, and when one hauls out a dictionary definition in an attempt to make one’s case, it means they themselves had to go fishing for understanding.

That's not true at all. Some people lack understanding of the many different usages of words and sometimes altogether. When a lawyer brings up a precedent, is he fishing for understanding? No. He's supporting his case.

What is not true? The statement I made that such was supposedly written, or the warning itself?

The statement that Gentiles aren't allowed in G-d's house. There were sections for Jewish men, Jewish women, and Gentiles. So to say they weren't allowed is false. To say they weren't allowed along with the Jewish women not being allowed in certain parts is true.

Originally posted by Shonet1430Josephus is the ONLY writer to say the walls were leveled. It's not in the Talmud and it's not in the Tanakh. It's not anywhere but having to do with Josephus, the man whose writings as far as Jesus is concerned appears to be tampered with. Taking that into consideration, nothing else of his can be taken seriously IMO until his credibility is establish.

Somehow I gather the tampereing to which you refer is regarding the references to Jesus and James, which would be implying that Christians did the tampering. With that I cannot disagree. When it comes to his explanation of Herod's temple however, there is no reason for Christian meddling in that regard, and so you must mean that his works were also tampered with by the Jews. This implies they would have no issue doctoring their scriptures either. With the latter I also do not disagree. Obviously the Christians would have been the last to do the tampering in any case.

I am at a loss as to why you even mention the Tanakh when it comes to Herod, since the Tanakh’s record of Jewish history ends almost 400 years before. Neither did it reference Alexander the Great, nor the Maccabees. By extension of your argument then, the accounts of their histories are also false.

You accept Zerubbabel’s temple as the second, and rightly so since, the prophecy to rebuild a second temple was made in Ezekiel where God made his promises to forevermore restore Israel to the Jews, (ch45). Ezekiel lived during the time of Jehoiachin and Nebuchadnezzar, late 7th to 6th century.

Zerubbabel’s temple rebuild as recounted in Haggai, occurs during the reign of Cyrus, circa mid 6th century. Hence, Ezekiel’s prophecy was made before this temple was built. It was by god’s urging that Zerubbabel was to rebuild the temple. According to Haggai, it is very clear that God considered this to be a different temple;

2:9The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, saith HaShem of hosts; and in this place will I give peace, saith HaShem of hosts.' …

According to Ezra, Zerubbabel’s temple was in fact that which was prophesied by Haggai:

6:14 And the elders of the Jews builded and prospered, through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded and finished it, according to the commandment of the G-d of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. See also ch5:1,2

Where Ezra obviously recounts events at the time of Nebuchadnezzar in the 6th century.

But is it not so that there are two schools of thought on which of Zerubbabel’s and Herod’s temples is the second? Yet, the words supposedly uttered by God as shown above clearly differentiate one as the former and the other as the latter.

To restate relevant dates: Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was circa 604 to 561BCE. Ezekiel supposedly prophesied around 597-570BCE.; Cyrus was king from circa 559-530BCE, during which time the temple was rebuilt. Both Ezra and Haggai therefore supposedly speaking of current events, would either have to be placed during that same time or after the fact, (which would have far too many implications on the dating of the books).

The issue behind the two camps therefore is that neither wishes to accept that the temple was in fact built three times, since to do so would be declare the prophesies of Israel’s glory false. Instead, those who cannot ignore the words of Ezra 6:14 and Haggai 2:9, and they would each do this because 1) The dimensions of Zerubbabel’s were not disclosed by the redactors and cannot therefore be compared to the dimensions prescribed by Ezekiel: 1a) Herod’s was also not those of Ezekiel’s dimensions.

All that aside, there is no prophecy of a third temple, is that also not correct? Ezekiel, given the dates above, made his prophesy after the destruction of the first temple and before the construction of the second. He mentioned nothing of a third. In fact, the reason a 3rd temple is touted is because by hook or by crook, if one ever is erected again, it will be made to Ezekiel’s measurements.

Regarding the rest of your post:

Originally posted by Shonet1430
Ok let me clear this up for you. I'm aware of what Pompey did and how he got into the Temple, Zerubbabel's. Each temple building had to do with an exile. There are three, hence there will be three temples It does not matter how many times a temple gets built according to prophecy, if there is no exile, it doesn't matter. .

Is that so? Please provide th erelevant passages requiring three exiles before the 3rd and final temple is rebuilt, I must have missed those.

Me- Yes quite, and when one hauls out a dictionary definition in an attempt to make one’s case, it means they themselves had to go fishing for understanding.

That's not true at all. Some people lack understanding of the many different usages of words and sometimes altogether. When a lawyer brings up a precedent, is he fishing for understanding? No. He's supporting his case.

Some do yes, I am notone of those "some people." Nevertheless, I take the position that anyone debating should at least be up to the task, that is not always so, but resorting to posting dictionary definitions is not something you would find me doing to try and make a point, simply because I would not do so in everday conversation with another, and were I to resort to same, means that I look to something else to bolster my argument, because I need help and an aversion.

What is not true? The statement I made that such was supposedly written, or the warning itself?

The statement that Gentiles aren't allowed in G-d's house. There were sections for Jewish men, Jewish women, and Gentiles. So to say they weren't allowed is false. To say they weren't allowed along with the Jewish women not being allowed in certain parts is true.

Then take that up with those who carved the inscription, I presented the supposed text, I did not compose it. There is nothing either you or I can do about same, so the point is moot and irrelevant. Much like the dictionary definition.

Somehow I gather the tampereing to which you refer is regarding the references to Jesus and James, which would be implying that Christians did the tampering. With that I cannot disagree. When it comes to his explanation of Herod's temple however, there is no reason for Christian meddling in that regard, and so you must mean that his works were also tampered with by the Jews. This implies they would have no issue doctoring their scriptures either. With the latter I also do not disagree. Obviously the Christians would have been the last to do the tampering in any case.

Putting words into my mouth again I see. First of all, yes I am referring to Jesus and Christian tampering. When a book has been tampered with, IMO all validity sort of flies out the window. But I said that Josephus is the ONLY one to mention the walls being leveled. It was not mentioned in the Talmud nor the Tanakh. As for the Jews "doctoring" their scriptures, the Torah is the only thing truly important to the Jews which has consistency. There were books not included in the "canonization" of the Tanakh which I have problems with considering the date and events in the period. So obviously Jews did tamper. There were also up to that point two groups of Jews...the Pharisees being the only ones who persisted. Their dogmas were rather different so in light of that, I can see why. But I can't understand why, writers in the same time period did not make note of such leveling. I would be hesitant to base an opinion on something that has already show to lack credibility.

I am at a loss as to why you even mention the Tanakh when it comes to Herod, since the Tanakh’s record of Jewish history ends almost 400 years before. Neither did it reference Alexander the Great, nor the Maccabees. By extension of your argument then, the accounts of their histories are also false.

Putting words into my mouth again. I mentioned it because of prophecy. And the initial Tanakh did in fact mention the Maccabees as the book of Maccabees was included.

You accept Zerubbabel’s temple as the second, and rightly so since, the prophecy to rebuild a second temple was made in Ezekiel where God made his promises to forevermore restore Israel to the Jews, (ch45). Ezekiel lived during the time of Jehoiachin and Nebuchadnezzar, late 7th to 6th century.

I do accept Zerubbabel's temple as the second and reject the idea of Ezekiel chapter 45 because chapters 1-24 are his oracles of judgment against Israel and Jerusalem, 25-32 are oracles of judgment against other nations and 33-48 are the oracles of restoration for Jerusalem and Israel being the center of the world, including the war of Gog and Magog which has not happened.

Zerubbabel’s temple rebuild as recounted in Haggai, occurs during the reign of Cyrus, circa mid 6th century.

This is when it began.

Hence, Ezekiel’s prophecy was made before this temple was built.

Ezekiel's prophecy is not regarding Zerubbabel's temple.

It was by god’s urging that Zerubbabel was to rebuild the temple. According to Haggai, it is very clear that God considered this to be a different temple;

2:9The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, saith HaShem of hosts; and in this place will I give peace, saith HaShem of hosts.' …

Of course it was a different temple. It was the second one. It was larger. It was modest. It lacked things like the ark, urim and thummim, etc. The people KNEW this was a different temple as you can see in verses 1.15b-2.9 which deals with answering the question of whether the new Temple is an appropriate one for G-d. Could they expect the temple to be pleasing to G-d even though it has not received the same legitimating sign at the completion of the first temple? Would G-d be with them in such a case? The report through Haggai serves to answer the questions and legitimized the temple. More specifically, Haggai chapter 2 is broken up into three pieces....the past, present and future. Verses 1-3 refer to the old Temple. Verses 4-5 is about G-d's presence and promises to Zerubbabel. Verses 6-9 are G-d's prophecies.

According to Ezra, Zerubbabel’s temple was in fact that which was prophesied by Haggai:

6:14 And the elders of the Jews builded and prospered, through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded and finished it, according to the commandment of the G-d of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. See also ch5:1,2

Where Ezra obviously recounts events at the time of Nebuchadnezzar in the 6th century.

Here is some background for you. The book of Haggai contains four reports set in four clear time frames. Babylonian empire fell 539 BCE. 2 Chronicles 36.22-23, Cyrus II issued a proclamation in his first year after the conquest of Babylong that stated, "The L-rd, G-d of Heaven, has given me all the kingdom of earth and He has commanded me to build Him a Temple in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of his entire people may the L-rd be with him, and let him go up [to Jerusalem], to build the Temple." See also Ezra 1.1-4. Haggai is set 18 years later in the second year of Darius I (520 BCE) and implies that the Temple was still not built at the time. The book urges people to undertake the work of reconstruction and talks about the central role of the Temple in daily life of the community.

But is it not so that there are two schools of thought on which of Zerubbabel’s and Herod’s temples is the second?

Surely in Haggai 1.8, G-d isn't talking to Herod. Go up to the hills and get timber, and rebuilt the House; then I will look on it with favor and I will be glorified -- said the L-rd. So there couldn't be any discrepancy on whose is the second, right? Also Chanukah is a festival marking the Maccabees restoring the second temple. This happened long before Herod.

Yet, the words supposedly uttered by God as shown above clearly differentiate one as the former and the other as the latter.

The former would be Solomon and the latter Zerrubabel.

To restate relevant dates: Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was circa 604 to 561BCE. Ezekiel supposedly prophesied around 597-570BCE.; Cyrus was king from circa 559-530BCE, during which time the temple was rebuilt. Both Ezra and Haggai therefore supposedly speaking of current events, would either have to be placed during that same time or after the fact, (which would have far too many implications on the dating of the books).

Correction. The Temple was ordered to be built during the time of Cyrus but was complete under Darius I in 515 BCE. There was a brief period of no construction.

The issue behind the two camps therefore is that neither wishes to accept that the temple was in fact built three times, since to do so would be declare the prophesies of Israel’s glory false.

Not true for several reasons. One is that the main text of Judaism lies in the Torah. The study, the weekly readings, etc are all Torah. Why? Because we are taught that the Torah is the direct word of G-d and the kethuvim and nevi'im are inspired by G-d but written by man. Also, if one wants to get technical, Moses built the first temple and it was portable.

Instead, those who cannot ignore the words of Ezra 6:14 and Haggai 2:9, and they would each do this because 1) The dimensions of Zerubbabel’s were not disclosed by the redactors and cannot therefore be compared to the dimensions prescribed by Ezekiel: 1a) Herod’s was also not those of Ezekiel’s dimensions.

Why would one need to ignore Ezra 6.14 when Ezra 6.3 via the decree from Cyrus gives the dimensions.

All that aside, there is no prophecy of a third temple, is that also not correct? Ezekiel, given the dates above, made his prophesy after the destruction of the first temple and before the construction of the second. He mentioned nothing of a third. In fact, the reason a 3rd temple is touted is because by hook or by crook, if one ever is erected again, it will be made to Ezekiel’s measurements.

Ezekiel is specifically the third. And yes, the third one WILL be built to specifications. I shall explain since you don't seem to have a grasp on it. The beginning of temple building (not including the tabernacle) goes to David. Long story short, it began with a census and ended with the purchase of the Temple Mount. As stated above, chapters 33-48 deal with the restoration of Israel. In chapters 40-42, we learn about the dimensions of the future temple. The prophecy did come during the Babylonian exile but was purposely not built to specifications as they knew the temple would be destroyed. Ezekiel's prophesy is about the eternal Temple. Here I think about Joseph Smith predicting the civil war when looking at the time period in which he "predicted," one can see that it was imminent. So if these people knew the issues surrounding their time period, they knew that this wouldn't be "the one." As for two schools of thought, there are two on the third temple. One is that we are bound by the law to build the Temple. The second and most commonly accepted is that one will come from heavenly fire and appear. To reconcile both is easy. The command to build came from Exodus 15.17 which ends with...which your hands have established. Then comes the practice of hechsher mitzvah....the act that causes a mitzvah to be fulfilled. If G-d brings down the Temple from heaven then what can Jews do to help build it? It would already be built, right? Each day we pray, "May it be your will, L-rd our G-d, and G-d of our fathers, that the Holy Temple be speedily rebuilt in our days." We are showing our avut (wanting and yearning). According to Kabbalah, our prayers create a sort of spiritual channel of light by which the Temple will descend. We also show our want each year by studying the design of the Temple during three weeks and ending with Tisha B'Av which commemorates the day of the two temple destructions and shows divine judgment. In one of our midrash, this is backed up by the fact that Yezekiel says, Master of the Universe, You instructed me to teach the form and laws of the Third Temple to the Jewish people when they shall do them [build the Temple]. Are they doing them now that I should teach it to them?" And G-d answered that a person studying the design of the Holy Temple according to the Book of Ezekial, would be regarded as if he were actually building it. Until that time, we Jews remain in exile.

PS. There are several other scriptures showing the prophecy of the eternal Temple.

Is that so? Please provide th erelevant passages requiring three exiles before the 3rd and final temple is rebuilt, I must have missed those.

Ok here's a breakdown. Exodus -> Solomon's Temple -> Babylonian Exile -> Zerubbabel's Temple -> Roman Exile -> Third Temple

Solomon's Temple came AFTER the exodus. Zerubbabel's Temple came AFTER the Babylonian exile. We are STILL in the Roman exile. The third temple is a part of the prophecies of the moshiach and will be built AFTER the Jews have returned to Israel. So again, we are still in exile and will be until the moshiach has come and THEN the temple will be built. Putting this into perspective with "Herod's Temple" or "Onias Temple" there was NO exile and there was NO moshiach.

Some do yes, I am notone of those "some people."

You may not be "some people" but you most certainly can't speak for everyone here and I certainly would not want someone confused about why I posted what I did. People on message boards come and go. Some will not fully read a post. There are many different reasons for why "some people" are "some people." Then like I said in a previous post, some people lack the understanding of the English language in general.

Nevertheless, I take the position that anyone debating should at least be up to the task, that is not always so, but resorting to posting dictionary definitions is not something you would find me doing to try and make a point, simply because I would not do so in everday conversation with another, and were I to resort to same, means that I look to something else to bolster my argument, because I need help and an aversion.

First of all, I do bring up definitions on a daily basis. One, I have children that I want to make sure they know what they are talking about if they use a word. If I hear them say something that I'm quite sure they don't know the meaning of, we will discuss it. Two, I home school my teenager. Again, words are constantly used every single day. I wasn't "resorting" to posting a definition as if I needed "help and an aversion." I was doing so for clarification on my post. Do I need to post the definition of clarification?

Then take that up with those who carved the inscription, I presented the supposed text, I did not compose it. There is nothing either you or I can do about same, so the point is moot and irrelevant. Much like the dictionary definition.

It doesn't bother me what the inscription says because I know how the Orthodox Jews are and their practices. And my dictionary definition was very relevant IMO and not in yours. We can just agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Shonet1430Putting words into my mouth again I see. First of all, yes I am referring to Jesus and Christian tampering. When a book has been tampered with, IMO all validity sort of flies out the window.

I surmised correctly, therefore I put no words in your mouth. Regards Josephus’ works then, you readily submit that Christians tampered with his words, and therefore you would rather cast a blind eye to all such works. Yet, you have not explained what purpose he would have to fabricate the information on the temple. So another question comes your way:

1)is it not also true that the authoritative information on all aspect of the temple during the 1st century ACE, comes to us from Josephus?

Therefore

But I said that Josephus is the ONLY one to mention the walls being leveled.

this account of same cannot be dismissed. Correct?

As for the Jews "doctoring" their scriptures, the Torah is the only thing truly important to the Jews which has consistency.

They not only doctored same, they rewrote the history of their Egyptian heritage into a new set of myths, and the Torah is nothing but the retelling of the same Egyptian myths over and over.

And the initial Tanakh did in fact mention the Maccabees as the book of Maccabees was included.

Oh? And the two books were removed because?

I do accept Zerubbabel's temple as the second and reject the idea of Ezekiel chapter 45 because chapters 1-24 are his oracles of judgment against Israel and Jerusalem,

I understand your position, choose what suits your purpose and discard what does not. If Ezekiel or for that matter any book is questionable in any part, then it should all be tossed. For if the author was deceitful in one area, he was likely deceitful in others.

Ezekiel's prophecy is not regarding Zerubbabel's temple.

I have provided you with a timeline, you have provided nothing but denial. Show me exactly to what his prophecy referred and substantiate your denial.

Of course it was a different temple. It was the second one. It was larger. It was modest. It lacked things like the ark,

Mention of the Ark of the Testimony ceased before the looting of the temple by Neuchadnezzar, in fact, it ceased to be spoken about during Hezekiah’s reign. Consequently, Zerubbabel’s temple also lacked the ark, did it not?

Ok here's a breakdown. Exodus -> Solomon's Temple -> Babylonian Exile -> Zerubbabel's Temple -> Roman Exile -> Third Temple

I asked you to provide the requirement for three exiles before the third temple is rebuilt. A depiction as to which exiles happened when does not answer the question. Further, you cannot be in Roman exile, since the Jews never acquired the exact piece of real estate promised to Abraham, in which case by technicality they are still in the first exile. The request to provide information relative to Ezekiel’s prophecy or stating the temple will be destroyed twice before its final rebuild has not been provided. Further, given that you state;

We are STILL in the Roman exile.

this next does not make sense;

Putting this into perspective with "Herod's Temple" or "Onias Temple" there was NO exile..

since, Israel was under Roman siege at the time of Herod.

First of all, I do bring up definitions on a daily basis. One, I have children that I want to make sure they know what they are talking about if they use a word.

You are an adult debating on a message board, as am I, therefore, and speaking from my perspective only, while it is often I find my opponent is of a tender age, it serves no purpose to be engaging them in debate if they cannot even understand grade 10 language. What good does it do to be providing definitions of your words, just so they might begin to understand the meaning of a sentence?

Now I wish to draw you back to context and note some outstanding requests:

2) The mention of a prophesied 3rd temple.
3) Why would you expect the Tanakh to mention Herod?
4) Zerubbabel’s was a new temple because of a new foundation, according to you, why then was Herod’s not?
5) Your response to their being two schools of thought as to both Zeruabbabel’s and Herod’s temple being the second, and why, the other is not considered.

Relative to the rest of your posts, and considering the unanswered above as well as the issues with your argument as outlined, I give you the following analysis;

When one is called up into heaven, one should expect that being in the firmament, EWNS directions either do not apply or cannot be discernible, yet Ezekiel, seemed to be firmly grounded by compass directions.

Ezekiel is the prophet upon whom Jews place all reliance for the rebuilding of the temple, yet, God while most willing to speak with him refuses through Ezekiel himself to speak with the elders, ch. 20; God also decides to do away with an old adage on failure and declares;

'Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say: The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of times that are far off.
Therefore say unto them: Thus saith the L-rd GOD: There shall none of My words be delayed any more, but the word which I shall speak shall be performed, saith the L-rd GOD.' ch12

This supposed vision was nothing but a political statement intended to suggest that the plebeians are not worthy of God’s voice, but listen to me, Ezekiel because I tell you I have his ear. Only in the eyes of those who desperately hang onto such words, do those words mean sometime in the millennia to come. It is after all how one keeps the myth alive.



[edit on 6/6/05 by SomewhereinBetween]