Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumPLO urge journalists: Don't use term 'Temple Mount'
PLO statement claims 'Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is not a disputed territory and all other terms, therefore, are null and void.'The Palestinians on Wednesday urged reporters and news outlets not to use the term 'Temple Mount' when covering recent events in the complex which also houses the Al-Aqsa mosque
A press release by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), dubbed "Concern over the use of the inaccurate term 'Temple Mount' to refer to Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound in Jerusalem" was sent out on Wednesday.
First reported by Matthew Kalman's blog, the statement called on the international media "to adhere to international law and correct any other existing terminology used. The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is not a disputed territory and all other terms, therefore, are null and void."
The Palestinians argue that "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound is located in East Jerusalem, an internationally recognized part of the Occupied State of Palestine."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4588544,00.html
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)as those who say there is no such thing as a Palestinian or call the west bank Judea and Sumeria.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Or Mount Everest instead.
King_David
(14,851 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Israel, Jordan fear violence over Temple Mount
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/israel-jordan-king-netanyahu-temple-mount-peace-treaty.html
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)guy like yourself.
King_David
(14,851 posts)To order everyone to call Spain Andalusia from now on..
WTF do they think they are.
What's it gotta do with religion anyway?
I call Mecca , Mecca and Islamabad, Islamabad and I don't believe in G-D.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)else the Palestinians have endured over this recently.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's one of several Spanish nationalities, in fact, under the 1978 constitution. Seriously, learn some stuff.
Next, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there is no temple there. There has not been a temple there for nineteen hundred years. There is a Muslim mosque there. There is a Muslim shrine there. It is al-Aqsa.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The temple being destroyed is irrelevant to what the site means to Judaism.
The fact that it is regarded as sacred to the Jews is what will diffuse this issue - the Rabbis forbid Jews to pray there to prevent defiling the site as it is impossible to perform the required purification rituals.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Namely, you think it's about Judaism. It's not. Look down there, at King_David. he tells us he's an atheist, he doesn't believe in god, he says. But there he is, yowling his head off about a chunk of masonry that some long-dead Jews used to pray to a thing he doesn't believe in anyway. Logically, it should matter as much to him, as the chunks of rubble left at Gamla Uppsala do to me. Neat place to tour perhaps, but something I'd get into a fight over?
But it seems that he and a lot of people really, really want to have this fight.
Why?
It's not about Judaism. it's about dominance. Israel wants to pick a fight over the al-Aqsa mosque. A fight that Israel will win through superior firepower, and then use as justification for further purges and restrictions against Arabs in the city.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Because both sides believe there is something to fight for. Pox on both their houses as far as I am concerned when it comes to the temple mount.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That the al-aqsa mosque is already there. The Dome of the Rock is already there. Both are Muslim sites. And sparing a fifty-year burp in the 12th century, both have been so since 691 CE. It's not as though someone is trying to install these features all of a sudden or something.
it is not "looking for a fight" if you are trying to protect something that is yours from people who are dedicated to wrenching it away from you.
This is simply not a "both sides are to blame" situation.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You want the Jews to renounce a central tenet of their religion simply because the Romans destroyed the temple many years ago. Not going to happen and you know it. .
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But the al-Aqsa compound's current status is not really up for question. The only way that status will change, is by force. Which seems to be exactly what is desired by Israel and its supporters. Superior firepower, after all.
It will be a flash point for certain. But then there are no shortage of flash points in the region.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)The PLO is not only seeking to refute the site's Jewish religious, historical and cultural significance themselves, but are actively demanding that the rest of the world follows suit.
I have no idea what you mean by "the compound's current status is not up for grabs." It's current status hasn't changed at all. It's currently sacred to several religions. In fact the only group seeking to challenge other religion's legitimacy is the PLO. An act you seem to support.
Unfortunately for you, the status of the Temple Mount is not up for grabs.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)It's also still the Temple Mount. You seem to think that the site lost its significance following the temple's destruction for some reason. The fact that for the following thousands of years the site remained the place Jews worldwide face while praying should indicate that it hasn't lost any of it's spiritual significance. More troubling is your insistence on dictating the tenets of another people's ancient religion based on your own uninformed views. The site has been the holiest place throughout Jewish history. The temple was built there because the site is sacred, not vice versa. The fact that a mosque was built there does nothing to mitigate this fact. It merely means that the site is regarded as sacred by several religions.
Regarding secular Jews' interest in the issue; one doesn't need to be religious in order to support the rights of others to practice their religion. Your argument thus far has centered around trying ins to delegitimize the religious significance of the Temple Mount; a position that tells us everything about your motivations. You care less about seeking equal access for Muslims than you do about voicing your rejection of Jewish parity.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Ak-saw? Aks-a? How?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I said that it is a Muslim place of worship. Has been for over thirteen hundred years. As such, the Muslim community sets the rules about it. Those rules ought to be respected, just as the rules set by any other religious community around their places of worship ought to be respected. It is extremely disrespectful and hostile to barge in and demand the rules be changed.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The irony of this, one would hope, is clear.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)*The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is not a disputed territory and all other terms, therefore, are null and void."
The Palestinians argue that "Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound is located in East Jerusalem, an internationally recognized part of the Occupied State of Palestine."
King_David
(14,851 posts)Will never be relinquished by any government of Israel EVER...
The PLO better realize this soon.
It's not a left nor right wing thing either.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Maybe you just don't get it?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Not sure exactly how that's hard to understand.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Sounds angry too.
Cheers.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You're an atheist, right? Don't believe in god?
yet here you are, screaming at the top of your lungs that Israel shall never ever ever "give up the temple mount."
it's a little incongruous for an atheist to be so caught up in a religious debate that was settled two millennia ago.
King_David
(14,851 posts)As usual you think you know my beliefs better than I do .
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Were you lying?
King_David
(14,851 posts)And not fabricate others ... Because you were caught this time.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's your opinion, expressed right here on this thread.
You are also expressing your opinion on the site in question:
You've made your opinion crystal clear. And now I'm wondering why you hold that opinion. Why, as an atheist, is this such a fervent idea for you?
King_David
(14,851 posts)here, incorrectly and fabricated , you desperetly want to change the topic.
Take home message is that you should post your own opinion and not manufacture other people's opinions.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm asking about your rationale for your opinions expressed.
You say you are an atheist. Yet you also demand that Israel claim and keep the Noble Sanctuary. Why?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)How embarrassing (not really) to watch him wriggle.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Great Gotcha moment towards pathetic lill me , well done .
You really showed me with that and really embarrassed me with that "biting" post showing how inferior I really am.
LOL
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)You came off well in that one .
King_David
(14,851 posts)Never was a madrich or Hebrew school or an Madrassa or went on a Haj or Birthright.
But you are passionate about these cultures.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)religion..I assure you.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Zionism..
I'm not israeli nor religious
Thanks for your assurances
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Israeli
(4,151 posts)ref : " It's not a left nor right wing thing either. " ........
Establishing Jerusalem as the capital of the two states, with East Jerusalem (including the Haram al-Sharif) serving as the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) serving as the capital of Israel. The city is to be united on the physical and municipal level, based on mutual agreement.
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/about/aims/
What are we .... chopped liver ???
shira
(30,109 posts)....according to Gush Shalom? Interesting.
Your friends from BDS would definitely object. See if you can find anyone from Team Palestine here agreeing with that whopper.
Israeli
(4,151 posts)....we understand that you need a wall to wail at ..........we dont .
For you I'm sure its Jerusalem the Golden for us its ........
O Jerusalem, Israelis have already forgotten thee
Tel Aviv isnt beautiful, yet it is loved. But a secular, liberal and humanist Israeli cannot love Jerusalem you cant love a city that's immoral.
By Gideon Levy
I dont like Jerusalem. The truth is, I hate it. I try to go there as little as possible and leave as quickly as possible. For the most part, its an ugly and infuriating city.
The Jewish part has some charming spots, all in the old neighborhoods. The Old City, which is in the Palestinian part, is of course spectacular in its beauty and history. All the rest: ugliness.
The new settler neighborhoods are ugly, as are the Palestinian neighborhoods, which are filthy and neglected, as is the city center. Even the Old Citys beauty has long been erased an occupied city is always frighteningly ugly.
But a city doesnt have to be beautiful to be loved. Tel Aviv isnt beautiful, yet it is loved. A secular, liberal and humanist Israeli cannot love Jerusalem you cant love a city when it's immoral. Its sanctity cannot speak to a secular person; such a person cant accept the false political premises stemming from this sanctity.
Such Israelis should stand up against the religious-nationalist brainwashing campaign all around Jerusalem. This isnt their campaign.
This campaign began the morning after the citys conquest and has only grown stronger. At the end of the 1967 war, while I was still a boy, I too fell prey to the orgy of the return to holy Zion, as did my whole generation. I was thrilled to tears at the sight of the Western Wall, as I was at Rachels Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs just days after the conquest. We didnt see what was going on around them.
Then came the years of romance, no less blind and steeped in denial: the night tours of the Old City, the humus, the young women students in their embroidered dresses from the market, the wine from the nearby Cremisan Monastery, the copper tables in every living room.
We loved Jerusalem. We loved it mainly because a trip there was a trip to another country, and in those days such trips were rare. We felt like we were abroad in Jerusalem; we didnt feel sanctity or Judaism.
A few friends rented rooms in a monastery in the eastern part of the city. We were secular, we were like dreamers. We loved Jerusalem and we thought that since the Knesset had passed a law, Jerusalem would remain occupied united forever in the whitewashed terminology of the occupation.
We thought it was enough that Jerusalem had a mayor who spoke with a Viennese accent, was considered a Central European liberal, and was a friend of international celebrities. We thought this was enough to obscure the crimes of the occupation and the settlements for which he, Teddy Kollek, was responsible from the first day.
The sobering up came, of course, only with the uprising. The first intifada reminded Israelis that the situation could not endure forever, not in the West Bank, not in the Gaza Strip and not in the capital forever and for all eternity. The occupation responded in the usual manner it tightened its violent grip.
In the second intifada the occupation even added another wall to the city, which tore its eastern part to shreds. At least the mask came off: Secular Israelis no longer traveled in the middle of the night to eat salted round bread in the Old City. The sanctity remained the province of the believers and the zealots.
But heres the amazing thing: United Jerusalem remained in the consensus, as if nothing had happened. As if secular Israelis had not long stopped going to the Old City, as if many secular people had not abandoned the western part, as if there had been no talk that the eastern part was occupied territory, just like Qalqilyah and Tul Karm.
But to tell the truth about Jerusalem, we need courageous leaders, who of course are lacking. The truth is, no country in the world recognizes Jerusalem as Israels capital. It has been destroyed by the occupation. It is divided, torn and scarred.
Its sanctity is a matter for believers only and in any case theres no connection between this and sovereignty. Its division into two capitals or its morphing into the capital of one state will be much less of a disaster than continuing its occupation.
Meanwhile, we can only stay away from it, as much as possible.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.623930
shira
(30,109 posts)I'm just modeling the response from Team BDS.
Gush Shalom is sanctioning land theft. So they're right wing Zionist extremists on the same side with Team Apartheid.
Welcome to the club, Israeli.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)That is interesting.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I hear you..
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That doesn't give the Israeli government the right to deem "null and void" any reference to their Muslim character.
Similarly, Jewish holy sites that are located in East Jerusalem ought not to be made devoid of their Jewish character just because of where they are located.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Temple Mount refers to a Jewish Temple that has not existed for nearly 2000 years rendering the more recent Islamic presence at best second class if not "null and void"
shira
(30,109 posts)The Romans destroying the Temple does nothing to take away a central tenet of Judaism. It's not for the Palestinians to decide what is or is not holy to Judaism today.
Or to make such rulings against Christians, for that matter.
You're advocating very ugly discriminatory policy.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)to call it the temple mount while what is actually there happen to be mosques is denying that presence
shira
(30,109 posts)As for the name Temple Mount, that's a denial of Jewish history. It's bad enough the Waqf has damaged or destroyed ancient Jewish artifacts beneath the Mount in order to deny Jewish history.
shira
(30,109 posts)Christians and Jews are being denied access in the name of Palestinian rights.
This is discrimination, and Team Palestine here is in full support.
Why?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I don't plan to change that because of some edict from the PLO.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)he's coming from..there was provocations from right wing Israeli's and then
violence in return, then it escalates. People begin to feel threatened about their
land and broken promises all over again...it's a mess.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)that deny any historical connection for jews to the Temple Mount. They claim that a jewish temple never existed in Jerusalem (despite all the historical records from the time of Herod, the Romans, etc that prove the contrary).
While I do not believe that Jews should be praying on the Temple Mount, out of respect to Muslims who consider the entire temple mount to be a mosque, I also think it is rather stupid on the part of others who deny a historical link between Jews and the Temple Mount. And that is exactly what the PLO is trying to do by urging journalists to not use the term Temple Mount. They are trying to deny any historical links for Jews. and by denying a link to Jews to the Temple Mount, they are in effect denying a link that makes the Wailing wall holy for jews.
shira
(30,109 posts)All non-Muslim prayer is banned.
Here's a picture demonstrating the kind of prayer that is deemed disrespectful and too extreme:
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)Islam considers all of the temple mount to be a mosque. So you would not go in to any mosque and do prayers of other religions besides Islam.
shira
(30,109 posts)Seems like Saudi Arabia, where public displays of non-Muslim religious prayer is banned. Not just in Mecca, but everywhere throughout Arabia.
Discriminatory nonetheless.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)Al-Aqsa Mosque from the west
The building became known as Masjid al-Aqsa, Al-Aqsa Mosque, although in reality the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary is considered Al-Aqsa Mosque, the entire precincts inviolable according to Islamic law. Every Friday prayer, the Al-Aqsa Mosque building overflows, with thousands of worshippers who must make their prayers outside in the courtyards of the vast open expanse of the Noble Sanctuary.
http://www.noblesanctuary.com/AQSAMosque.html
shira
(30,109 posts)...and quietly pray on the Temple Mount grounds. Before 1967, no Jews were allowed there at all, for any reason.
Let's not bullshit here. It's that status quo (the pre-'67 conditions) which is being revived once again by Jew haters.
This isn't about sacred Muslim ground. In this photo, there are Palestinian kids playing soccer on the Mount:
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Observant Jews are not supposed to pray on the temple mount, or even enter the temple mount, as they might inadvertently enter the holy of holies:-
So nothing to do with Muslims at all, really.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)Jews that say as long as they avoid the area that they think was the holy of holies it is ok to pray there.
In fact it is why many very religious jews will go in to the western wall temple to pray, so they can be as close to the suspected location of the holy of holies as possible, without stepping foot in there.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)and you have these types of responses. It's not as if Abbas went with
this call out before..not that I'm aware of.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)as have other PA leaders.
http://archive.adl.org/anti_semitism/arab/temple_denial.html
http://zoa.org/2014/04/10238476-zoa-pal-lies-denial-about-jewish-connection-rights-in-jlem-must-stop-now/
Islamic-Christian Council for Jerusalem: Israel "never saw or knew any Jewish civilization, antiquities"
Source: Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, June 6, 2014
Secretary-General of the Islamic-Christian Council for Jerusalem and the Holy Places Hanna Issa said
: Fate and divine will willed that the land of Jerusalem be filled with countless civilizations and antiquities for there are various antiquities under most of the properties in the Old City of Jerusalem, including hallways, cellars, tunnels, water shafts, bath houses and places of worship
whose history goes back over 5,000 years. In the past, the Near East knew ancient civilizations of various kinds that succeeded each other, but it never saw or knew any Jewish civilization, antiquities or even a historic structure.
Source: Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 27, 2014
Op-ed by Adli Sadeq, PLO Ambassador to India and regular columnist for official PA daily
These days, the occupiers have reached the height of their rampage in their parliament, which is populated by a handful of crazy people reinforced by fairy tales and bundles of dreams, not a single letter of which has been proven true by a single stone of Jerusalem
Each day, they come out with a new refrain that not [even] the first Zionists before them could have imagined, and pretend that their alleged Temple stood exactly at the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque
Recognizing the Jewishness of the State is an implicit confirmation that the refugees have no rights, that we stole ourselves a homeland and have not been [living] on our ancestors land for thousands of years. If the Jews were indeed present [here] for a short period in the history of our land, that presence was not along the coast, nor in the north or south of Palestine. In other words, the Jews never passed through or were present in the territories which the peace process firmly defines as being outside the negotiations and [designates] as Israeli territory
1. Denial of the Jewish Connection to the City of Jerusalem
"The archaeological treasures in Jerusalem emphasize the depth of the city's heritage and history; they emphasize its Arabness and refute the Israeli claims that it is a Jewish city... It is known that perhaps under every stone and in every corner, on every street and at every turn in Jerusalem there are relics. These relics say, 'We are Arab, we are Muslim, we are Christian."
[Dr. Marwan Abu-Khalaf, director of the Archaeological Institute at Al-Quds University - PA TV (Fatah), Feb. 27, 2009]
"They [the Jews] base themselves on myths and invoke the Jewish religion and Jewish faith, despite the fact that the truly religious Jews truly believe - and they have stated this on more than one occasion - that the Temple was never in the Holy City [Jerusalem], and was absolutely never on the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque."
[Mahmoud Al-Habbash, PA Minister of Agriculture and Welfare - PA TV (Fatah), April 16, 2009]
"[The Jews] wept and cried over the western wall of the Al-Aqsa Mosque due to the self-delusion and falsification that this was a remnant of a wall of the alleged Temple
They place notes between the stones and dream of the day when they will approach closer, into the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and plan to build the alleged Temple
[PA TV (Fatah): "Synagogues Encircling Al-Aqsa" - May 1, 2009]
[Dr. Hasan Sun'-Allah, a scholar at the Center of Modern Research] "criticized the use of the term 'Wailing Wall' instead of 'Western Wall' [of Al-Aqsa], and stated that the occupation falsifies the facts, and has no rights over the walls of Al-Aqsa mosque, to use them as a site for mourning."
[Al-Ayyam, April 28, 2009]
Dr. Tayseer Al-Tamimi, PA Chief Justice of religious court, and Chairman of Supreme Council of Islamic Law:
"Jerusalem is the religious, political and spiritual capital of Palestine - the Jews have no rights to it."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), March 2, 2009]
"We do not agree with the biblical version, according to which [Jerusalem] was a mighty kingdom, or the capital of a mighty kingdom. No palace has been discovered, nor have any remnants of the First Temple - built in Solomon's time - been found, testifying to this greatness... The Hebrews arrived in Jerusalem during the first millennium B.C.E., but their rule in Jerusalem lasted only for a short time... To date one cannot point to any element in Jerusalem that is related, historically speaking, to that period, or any element that is historically related to the Hebrew culture."
[Nazmi Al-Ju'ba, lecturer in history at Bir Zeit University - PA TV (Fatah), Feb. 27, 2009]
"It [Jerusalem] is the meeting point of a number of archaeological sites, by means of which the Israeli establishment is trying to raise an imaginary Hebrew history."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), March 4, 2009]
"[Dr. Yunes Amr, President of the Al-Quds Open University,] who authored a book entitled, 'Jerusalem - City of Allah', has reviewed the Israeli claims concerning the history of the Jewish presence in Palestine and in Jerusalem, and has disproved them historically and linguistically, [exposing] their falsification of the facts. He pointed out the inaccuracy of the widespread view that the Palestinians originated with a group of people who emigrated from the Greek [Isles] and settled in Palestine, affirming instead that the Palestinians are Arab Canaanites indigenous to this land."
[Al-Ayyam, April 7, 2009]
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)point of reference was to the present, with Abbas and the situation at hand.
He made this call out in response to the provocations and violence.
Religious beliefs and the respect due and lack there of, is another example of
a failed peace process all these decades, I feel.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)that this call out wasn't due to recent provocations, but a long history of the PA to deny a historical link of jews to the temple mount, jerusalem.
He may have stated it now, but it is not a new thing.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I find that hard to believe he decided to bring this up at this point in time if it
had not been for the unrest.
Obviously, I can't read his mind but I don't see it that way.
Thanks for the links, btw.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)on why he brought it up now (current unrest). But I believe that he is just stating something that is a long held view of his, probably in hopes of shoring up his support.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)is that no one actually knows for sure whether the Dome of the Rock or the Al-Aqsa mosque is in fact the location of the Second Temple, or even whether it overlaps with the site of the second temple.
The assumption that the rock of the Dome of the Rock is the same as the rock on which the Second Temple was founded is just an assumption. Its worth noting that the site lay barren for six hundred years before the Arabs built the Dome, so its fairly unlikely that they had much to guide them by that time.
As for the temple, more modern archaeological findings have hypothesised that its location may have been further over to the south east.
Another chap called Martin has opined that the temple complex may have been entirely distinct and that the retaining wall known as the Western Wall may not have been connected with the temple complex at all:-
http://askelm.com/temple/t001211.htm
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)as well as records from Herod's time and historians such as Josephus, the Temple Mount is where the second temple was located.
It is harder to determine where the first temple was located. So I will go with those known sources.
As far as Ernest Martin, his findings are not well supported, neither historical documents, nor by what has been recovered from under the temple mount. Most historians do not agree with his determinations.
While the site remained undeveloped until the Arab conquest, it did not remain unused. In fact under Emperor Hadrian the area was cleared of the ruins of what remained of the temple, and there were initially plans to rebuild the temple at that time, with Hadrian's permission. But then he changed his mind and wanted a pagan temple build there as well.
Then Emperor Julian stopped at Jerusalem, and gave permission for Jews to rebuild the temple, but that work was ended by an earthquake in 363, which was taken as a symbol at the time that god did not want the temple rebuilt so work was halted.
There is also further historical evidence that sacrifices on the temple mount at the foundation stone thru the Byzantine period.
When the Sassanids conquered the area from the Byzantines, they gave jews local autonomy and permission to once again restart animal sacrifices (which was done for 5 years) but shortly before the Byzantines retook jerusalem, the Persians revoked that autonomy and gave control to Christians which used the temple mount as a garbage dump. The Christians also tore down what had been rebuild by the Jews.
When the Caliph conquered jerusalem in 630 it was still being used as a garbage dump.
So Martin's assertions come from that it was undeveloped from 70AD - 630ADish (or when the mosques were built) to mean that the temple did not exist there is just wrong.
The temple mount was used on and off from the time of Herod, thru about 615AD as a temple with sacrifices, etc, even if the physical structure of the temple was gone.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)but you are assuming that the current dome of the Rock was built on the ruins of a church apparently built by Constantine, which was built on the ruins of a Jovian temple built by the Romans, which was etc etc...
So the assumption that the dome is where the temple stood is an assumption founded on a succession of other assumptions.
Apart from certain passages in the Mishnah, there is very little documentary guidance in jewish sources as to the location of the temple. The very limited archaeological evidence (a cistern and some other bits and bobs) point to the temple having been located some ways off to the south east, although still within the four walls of the mount.
Even ultranationalist jews can't make up their mind. Sometimes they say that the al Aqsa mosque was built on the ruins of the temple, sometimes they say that the dome was. It can't possibly be both.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)is supposed to be where the sacrifices took place, and where the holy of holies would have been. But that was only a part of the temple. The herodian temple was quite large, and had both enclosed areas as well as open air ones. (inner and outer courtyards)
And I am going by historical records that show where the temple was located.
Both herodian and Roman records show the temple mount being constructed for the use of a Jewish Temple. This project was expansive and literally took decades to complete. Historical records also show that it was never out of use, and that is what we have to go on.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Some believe the position is north of the Dome of the Rock, opposite the Gate of Mercy, which Rabbi Emmanuel Chai Reiki[10] identifies as the Shushan Gate mentioned in the Talmud. This gate was described as being opposite the opening of the sanctuary.[11]
Modern Jewish academics list four possible locations of the Foundation Stone:[12]
The stone that was located beneath the Ark of the Covenant is the one under the Dome of the Rock.[13]
The stone that was located beneath the altar is now the one that is under the Dome of the Rock.[14]
The stone that was located beneath the Ark of the Covenant is now near El Kas fountain to the south of the Dome of the Rock.[15]
The stone that was located beneath the Ark of the Covenant is now inside the Spirits Dome situated to the north of the Dome of the Rock.[16]
That is just the Jewish scholars. There are plenty of other views. If the holy of Holies was near the spirits dome then the temple would probably have overlapped slightly with the dome, if it was near the El kas fountain then not at all.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)to take the part of the article that the foundation stone (dome of the rock) was just one PART of the temple. The temple itself was fairly expansive.
But your link still states that the area between the dome of the rock and the al asqa mosque might be in the unbuilt area between the dome of the rock and the al asqa mosque. Which would still mean that the temple mount is part of the Herodian temple.
Historical records do show that sacrifices took place on the foundation stone after the herodian temple was destroyed by the Romans.
Additionally the temple mount was not just used for the temple itself, but for religious court rulings, which would have taken place in the outer courtyard.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)it would have easily fit within the dome. The associated courtyards and so forth making up the rest of the complex extended the size, but I was referencing the fact that many Jews conflate the dome with the al aqsa mosque, and say that both were built on the ruins of the temple building. It can't possibly be both.
Which is neither here nor there, even if it were true.
Likewise.
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)The term Temple Mount is historically accurate.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)bit it's old. Can't have that, as you know.
I can post it in replies, though:
New Evidence for the Site of the Temple in Jerusalem
" Two Academic Reviews of my New Research in the Book "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot."
The first is from: Prof. James D. Tabor, Dept. of Religious Studies, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223. Given in May, 2000.
http://askelm.com/temple/t001211.htm
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)and the professors within, rely heavily on Ernest Martin.
And yes there is that pesky rule about new threads here having to be based on new articles.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)But it is fascinating to consider the premise, no?
sabbat hunter
(6,829 posts)but I would have to read a LOT more of his work to really say if it is truly fascinating