THE TRUE LOCATION OF THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE (FINAL EPISODE!) 

Thanks. I pushed the Like button. You are a star.

Brother I love your video's and I would like to donate to your channel , unfornately our family doesn't have a lot of money . I was wondering if it would be a slap in the face if I only sent 5 dollars ? Thank you for these awesome video's you make ....

Thank you for your beautifully made videos with well developed graphical illustrations. The graphics help a lot to visualize the locations of the various features of the ancient city.

Your videos have always been informative, interesting, and in my opinion award winning, but this world a lot of people are not interested in this and would ridicule you and me for trying to get people unbelievers on the side of god.

Simply fabulous‼️🇮🇱

Awesome! Thank you!

The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1,2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building. The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City! Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple. The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David. The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city? Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)

When was aqueducts built,

Glad it was helpful!

You mean spreading misinformation.

The true Temple is in the city of David, where Gihon Spring is. This video should clarify it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oKTO8YYs29c.htmlfeature=shared

Well if there was an aqua duct to feed the Temple Mount and it looks like there was then it can be a likely place. Also the mickvas around the higher elevation would make sense then. However there are others who described the temple. The Gihon Spring is the only spring within the city limits of Jerusalem. We have the eyewitness account of a person from Egypt named Aristeas who viewed the Temple in about 285 B.C.E. He stated quite categorically that the Temple was located over an inexhaustible spring that welled up within the interior part of the Temple. About 400 years later the Roman historian Tacitus gave another reference that the Temple at Jerusalem had within its precincts a natural spring of water that issued from its interior. These two references are describing the Gihon Spring (the sole spring of water in Jerusalem). It was because of the strategic location of this single spring that the original Canaanite cities of "Migdol Edar" and "Jebus" were built over and around that water source before the time of King David. The Gihon Spring is located even today at the base of what was called the "Ophel" (a swelling of the earth in the form of a small mountain dome) once situated just to the north and abutting to "Mount Zion" (the City of David). So close was the Ophel Mound to the City of David that David began to fill in the area between the two summits with dirt and stones (calling it the Millo or "fill in") to make a single high level area on which to build his city and later the Temple. If the temple were fed by an aqueduct I would think the 2 references would not call it a natural spring. Interestingly, we also have a geographical designation in the Scriptures that confirms the centrality of the Temple on the southeast ridge. In Second Kings 23:13 it mentions a spot on the southern flank (or extended spur) of the Mount of Olives that was directly to the east of the Jerusalem that existed at that time. The text states: "The high places that were before Jerusalem [that is, east of Jerusalem], which were on the right hand on the Hill of Corruption [on the southern right hand spur of the Mount of Olives]." Since the highest point of the Mount of Olives is directly east of the Dome of the Rock (which is about 1000 feet north of the Gihon Spring), this statement in Scripture refers to an area much further south that was directly east of the Jerusalem of that time. This region was on the right hand side of the Mount of Olives at a summit of the southern spur of Olivet. It was a separate and lower ridge called the Hill of Corruption. This again reveals that the Temple (being in the center of Jerusalem) was directly west of the Hill of Corruption (about 1000 feet south of the central and highest summit of the Mount of Olives and consequently it was also about 1000 feet south of the Dome of the Rock). The present Haram esh-Sharif where the Dome of the Rock now exists IN NO WAY can be considered to be in the center of Jerusalem. In the Jerusalem of Herod and Jesus, the Haram was about 36 acres of land located in the northeast part - one of the most northerly areas in Jerusalem. In the time of Solomon and later this northeast area would have been a lop-sided extension to the Southeast ridge. But the Temple was in the center of Jerusalem, not in the extreme north. You can read more from www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinE01.html The fact is Titus used the fort that was not destroyed and he describes the 37 huge cisterns they had. During the revolt Rome needed much more than a cohort to put down the revolt. Eleazar also described the fort being pristine and Jerusalem’s city utterly destroyed. There are other references in the Bible that describe the temple in the midst of Jerusalem which the northern part of the where the mount is does not describe. So while I like his argument it still does not account for many things. Further recent excavation in the city of David support it for the temple location. IE places here the animals were kept etc. just my 0.02. I say there is not enough data yet to support either but I lean towards the city of David. And no I have never heard of the 2 people he described supporting a city of David location and I would need a lot more evidence for either position

​@@SeanGlazier - Interesting. At least for now I'm inclined to think that the temple as built by Solomon was built on what we now call the Temple mount. That opinion is based on this video and several other videos I have watched, but certainly I'm no expert. And I'm also inclined to think that we're about ten years away from the return of Jesus, in which case I'll just ask him or any of the Jews believers who lived from 10-30 A.D. I'm fascinated by all the history and archeology, but I'm fine with whatever turns out to be the real location. Thanks for the extra info!

Could you cite this?

He also said the Roman fort stood above the temple, that means the fort would have been where the Al-Aqsa Mosque stand now.

@@76verdee there was a garrison, when Jesus run the money changers out of the temple the Roman soldiers would have arrested him, why not? This is something that the church wrote into the scriptures to turn Christians against Jews, this is my opinion.

Is that why they found evidence of it under the mosque after a an earthquake

Another bs.....plow.....yea right

Great to hear!

We are taught that aqueducts are Roman only. It stands to reason that Solomon would do it first.

I think this too, we are blessed. Israel is a nation since 1948, and we see so much happening because of TV and now internet.

The Jews don’t believe in Jesus . Never understood how Christians support Jews who did not believe in Jesus and called Mary names . While Muslims love Jesus and are waiting for him to come back …just never made sense to me .

@@alhimyari11 Jesus was a Jew and all the first Christians were Jews. Jews are the chosen people and when they turn to Christ then He will return. I never understood why Muslims follow a “prophet” who raped a 9yr old girl.

@@alhimyari11 if you loved Him then you would follow Him and not the devil

@@CCiPencil i do , that’s why we’re waiting for him to come back . What doesn’t make sense is Christians loving Jews who tried to kill Jesus and call Mary names . Muslims do not do that .

Wow, thank you

Yes upcorse

43:25

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish traitor for the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus. He and his other buddies wrote the New Testament using the original Torah prophecy to invent the Christian Jesus. Read Caesar’s Messiah.

Thank you very much!

Wonderful!

The evidence is flawed. The so-called temple mount is not where the temples were located.

Glad it was helpful!

Well said!

When Mose was Powered up by God at the burning bush. The Bible says he never shut off. Never abated. So he is still up on the mountain he body still shoots out light..Jesus was given a scroll he was Powered then. Mose face was so bright they covered it up. Jesus had a beam..never shut off.beings of Light do not shut off..

Each Chosen one Powers up. They transform..they do not die like you are viewing it. Both did the 40 day Fast that turn,s them on..even after they claim Jesus died. They saw a being of Light

iSSAC WAS NOT A LITTLE BOY at that time, he probably had more faith than the two of us.

Isaac had no idea what they were going to the site for. It's not like Abraham told him "Let's go to the mountain so I can kill you.". Isaac even asked where the lamb for the sacrifice was and Abraham told him that God would provide the sacrifice. Isaac was basically tricked into following his dad to the altar but he trusted his dad and had no previous reason to believe his dad would hurt him. The impressive part is that Abraham, being more aged than Isaac, was able to physically bind him and place him on the altar. It doesn't say but I believe that Abraham would have knocked Isaac unconscious to bind him and place him on the altar. I can't picture Abraham struggling to tie up his son with Isaac wriggling, fighting and screaming. It doesn't say for sure but I doubt that Isaac just went along with it once they were there and Abraham tried to put him on the altar.

@@ichitoburrito1359 you invent a struggle where there is no struggle.

@@thebigshow6102 and you know this how? It never says whether there was or was not a struggle and Isaac isn't heard from again in the story until his parents are dead and he is looking for a bride. It doesn't really say what happened but I doubt that Isaac was ok with it and just gave in and laid there, otherwise why would Abraham have to bind him? Why would Abraham have hid the purpose of their journey if he knew Isaac had faith enough to go along with it? Logically one can conclude that there was some sort of resistance from Isaac otherwise, like I said, he wouldn't need to be mislead on the way and wouldn't need to be bound when they got there.

@@ichitoburrito1359 agreed, he did not know. But he had faith in God that he would be alright. That is what faith is. He was not a child without understanding. I have boys 18, 21, and 38. They know an earthly death is not the end.

You're very welcome

God is trustable beyond anything ever and always. Will there not be on abomination of desolation standing in the Holy place? What is there now? Aks in prayer, read to scriptures , test ask if there even will be a third temple.... just test anything and everything. He will come as a thief in the night.

thank you for your comment. I am glad you enjoyed this video. Thank you so much for your support. Please tell me a bit about yourself. You can write me an email: izraelmojachwala@gmail.com

Wonderful expiation. Very well done !!!!!!!!!!!!

I discussed that water was brought from Hebron

That is because the true Temple was in the city of David, where the Gihon Spring is. This video should clarify. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oKTO8YYs29c.htmlfeature=shared

The source of water in the temple is also mentioned by Dr. Roy Blizzard (worked on an archaeological excavation in Jerusalem in 1968 with Prof. Mazar) in an interview with Nehemia Gordon. According to Dr. Blizzard had an aqueduct system, the spring at Bethlehem area flowing down to the temple mount... So it's a running water. 👇 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pSiKdqD2S-4.html&si=Tg-V4N-QdcLdM-Qb

@@IsraelMyChannelthere is a little stream in the city of David in a cave, 2 miles south of the ‘temple Mount’. They would not walk miles up to a hill with water! The temple had to be inside the actual city of David, and many reports prove that and say that a Roman fort was on the hill instead. Also, God said it must be placed on stones carved out by man, not a natural rock, and along with that the wailing wall is certainly fake as God said the walls would all fall down.

And in an underground area near that stream in a cave is a sacrificing stone

The IMC video says at time 19:09 “the words of Jesus that not one stone from the Temple would be left standing.” And shows Matthew 24:1, 2 at time 19:24, and then says at times 21:08, 28 and 22:39 “the stones that are left are not part of the Temple … those stones were used to enlarge the Temple itself. He [Herod] did it to expand the Temple complex that facilitated thousands of worshippers everyday … So, you can’t use Jesus’ words and say they prove your theory because the Western Wall is standing. Jesus was referring to the Temple and there is not one stone standing of the Temple.” Actually, Mat. 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things,” which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The video makes it sound like only one building (the temple) is to be destroyed, but the Scripture says “buildings” (plural) are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it - these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? They would not have destroyed their own Roman building. The video says at time 18:41, “.. it is very inappropriate to associate Zion just with the City of David. The Biblical use of the word is much broader ..” But, the video there fails to note the City of David can be referred to as Jerusalem, as well, (see below) which is not Jerusalem in general but just a small part of expanded Jerusalem. When expanded Jerusalem is referred to as Zion it is simply a later generalization - notice the City of David is distinctly referred to as Zion at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? Referring to 2 Samuel 5:7, the video says “.. it seems unwise to base your geographical theology on a single use of the term that in reality refers to many things” (time 18:51). The video makes it sound like there is only 1 verse for this, but there are more verses besides 2 Samuel 5:7 that refer to the City of David as Zion. And, the video fails to point out that was before Jerusalem expansion and before the Temple (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Chron 11:5; 2 Chron 8:1, 6). I normally point to 1 Kings 8:1, which directly states, “the City of David (which is Zion)” (cf. 2 Sam 5:7, 9; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8; 1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6). Zion could in general be referred to as Jerusalem (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem before and at the Temple dedication (1 Chron 11:5; 1 Kings 8:1), and before Solomon’s expansion (2 Chron 8:1, 6). David is at his palace in “Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:14, 16), but specifically the palace would be in the capital (Zion) - the City of David part of later expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem - that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem; Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City! Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) - that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy - she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple. The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David - also called Jerusalem - when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was - before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David. The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) - one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city? Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger (at framingtheworld dot com)

Many thanks!

The British did not help the Jews after the Balfour Declaration. The Jews had to fight the British to release the land to the Jews.

thank you for your comment. I am glad you enjoyed this video. Thank you so much for your support. Please tell me a bit about yourself. You can write me an email: izraelmojachwala@gmail.com

Thank you! You too!

Glad you enjoyed it!

The real location of the temple, where now the Al Aqsa Mosque stands, is the most plausible of all theories.

You're very welcome!

"AND SOLOMON COMMENCED TO BUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LRD IN JERUSALEM ON MOUNT MORIAH" Divrei Hayamim II (Chronicles II) - Chapter 3: 1And Solomon commenced to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where He had appeared to his father David, which he had prepared in David's place, in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. אוַיָּ֣חֶל שְׁלֹמֹ֗ה לִבְנ֚וֹת אֶת־בֵּֽית־יְהֹוָה֙ בִּירֽוּשָׁלִַ֔ם בְּהַר֙ הַמּ֣וֹרִיָּ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִרְאָ֖ה לְדָוִ֣יד אָבִ֑יהוּ אֲשֶׁ֚ר הֵכִין֙ בִּמְק֣וֹם דָּוִ֔יד בְּגֹ֖רֶן אָרְנָ֥ן הַיְבוּסִֽי:

And how did the Priests continually wash in flowing water up there? Where is the 600 ft (two football fields) long walkway from the fort to the temple? The western wall simply cannot be standing if it was the Temple Mount.

Do the Jesus will make Allaince with Antichrist, the false Messiah of Jews?

Thank you kindly!

Same to you!