Pope Francis calls for elimination of all nuclear weapons

An atmospheric nuclear test conducted by the United States at Enewetak Atoll, Marshall Islands, on November 1, 1952. (Credit: US government file photo.)

In Vatican

Charles Collins

March 28, 2017

MANAGING_EDITOR

In a letter to a UN congress promoting the elimination of atomic weapons, Pope Francis wrote that nuclear deterrence is ineffective against the principal threats in the twenty-first century, mentioning in particular terrorism, asymmetrical conflicts, cybersecurity, environmental problems, and poverty. The pontiff said the international community must consider “the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences” that would follow from any use of nuclear weapons.

ROME — Pope Francis has called for a “collective and concerted” multilateral effort to eliminate nuclear weapons, telling a United Nations conference working on a treaty to prohibit such weapons that international peace and stability “cannot be based on a false sense of security, on the threat of mutual destruction or total annihilation, or on simply maintaining a balance of power.”

The conference took place March 27 in New York, after the UN General Assembly voted in December to negotiate a legally binding treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, with the aim of working toward their total elimination.

Such a treaty would make explicit what is implied in the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which calls on declared nuclear powers to aim for complete nuclear disarmament.

The talks seemed doomed from the start, since every state with nuclear weapons – including the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council – boycotted the congress.

Nikki Haley, the U.S. representative to the UN, said she “would love to have a ban on nuclear weapons, but in this day and time we can’t honestly say we can protect our people by allowing bad actors to have them and those of us that are good trying to keep peace and safety not to have them,” specifically mentioning the threat of nuclear-armed North Korea.

The pontiff answered these objections directly in a letter to the congress, noting the current “unstable climate of conflict” might not seem the best time to approach the “demanding and forward looking goal” of nuclear non-proliferation, and even nuclear disarmament.

However, the pope said nuclear deterrence is ineffective against the principal threats in the twenty-first century, mentioning in particular terrorism, asymmetrical conflicts, cybersecurity, environmental problems, and poverty.

“These concerns are even greater when we consider the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences that would follow from any use of nuclear weapons, with devastating, indiscriminate and uncontainable effects, over time and space,” Francis writes, adding “we need also to ask ourselves how sustainable is a stability based on fear, when it actually increases fear and undermines relationships of trust between peoples.”

The pope said the world needs to go beyond nuclear deterrence: “The international community is called upon to adopt forward-looking strategies to promote the goal of peace and stability and to avoid short-sighted approaches to the problems surrounding national and international security.”

Francis said the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons becomes “both a challenge and a moral and humanitarian imperative,” and “a concrete approach should promote a reflection on an ethics of peace and multilateral and cooperative security that goes beyond the fear and isolationism that prevail in many debates today.”

He said this reflection should involve the voices of all people, including religious communities, civil society, and international organizations.

“The common destiny of mankind demands the pragmatic strengthening of dialogue and the building and consolidating of mechanisms of trust and cooperation, capable of creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons,” the pope said.

The Vatican has condemned the use of nuclear weapons since even before they were developed.

Pope Pius XII, in 1943 – two years before the first successful nuclear weapons test – urged such weapons never be developed “because otherwise the consequence could be catastrophic not only in itself but for the whole planet.” After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, Pius called the nuclear bomb “the most terrible weapon that the human mind has ever conceived".

....
Taken from: https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/03/28/pope-francis-calls-elimination-nuclear-weapons/

The Army should be non-political. So why is it at Mardi Gras?

Defence members marching in the Sydney Mardi Gras parade. (Pic: Supplied)



IN honour of Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, the Australian Army last week provided its troops with a rainbow-coloured Army Pride lapel pin.




The official pin features the iconic Rising Sun badge wrapped in the rainbow colours of the same sex marriage campaign.
It is a blatantly political symbol, disrespecting the Anzac spirit in order to make a contentious political point, in direct contravention of official Army guidelines in place since 1903 to protect Australian Army emblems.
The rising sun badge “cannot be redrawn, recoloured, renamed, modified, cropped, rotated, manipulated or altered in any way...or used a part of a new logo”.
And yet, here it is, authorised in 2013 by the diversity-mad former Army Chief David Morrison to be pinned on Army uniforms, where no pin for any other cause is ever allowed.
Vietnam veteran Charlie Lynn, for one, is furious that the Rising Sun has been wrapped in the imagery of identity politics.
“That’s the biggest insult I have ever seen to a badge that means so much to both serving and retired veterans. It wasn’t designed to be a catalyst for social change. It’s a symbol of sacrifice. It’s a symbol of what we fought for, for freedom.”
The rainbow flag has become a political symbol of the so-called Marriage Equality campaign, and it has no place in a military which expressly forbids political activity.

Nor should our military be authorised to march in uniform in the Mardi Gras parade, as it did last night for the fourth year, another legacy of “Diversity Dave” Morrison.
Marching in uniform is a political activity, and never has the Mardi Gras parade been more political.
The theme this year is “Creating Equality”, with 27 registered floats spruiking “Marriage Equality.”
The Mardi Gras constitution states the parade is a “cultural, political and protest” activity, and its Board has called on the Government to “pass a Marriage Equality Bill”.

Army Rising Sun rainbow lapel.

This was the context in which roughly four ADF platoons marched last night down Oxford Street, wedged between the City of Sydney’s “Say Yes to Love” float, featuring dancing brides and grooms, and the “Australians for Equality” float, whose “key message is to achieve marriage equality via a free vote in parliament”.
So there was no ambiguity about the message the ADF is endorsing. It is a party political message, because the position of the Coalition is for a plebiscite on whether marriage is redefined, while Labor and the Greens want a parliamentary vote. When young Army leaders at a recent diversity training course expressed concerns that marching in the Mardi Gras constituted political activity, they were told it was simply a “cultural event”.
But that is manifestly untrue.

The Australian Army’s Rising Sun badge is a symbol of sacrifice, and shouldn’t be turned into an agent of social change, says Vietnam veteran Charlie Lynn. (Pic: Supplied)

Defence defines political activity as “any activity other than voting carried out on behalf of or in connection with any registered political party (or) any group or organisation seeking to pursue their interests through political means such as lobbying, advocacy, public protest or other media attention.”
Defence members are instructed to be “apolitical in the performance of their duties” and to ensure “that the ADF and the Department of Defence remain politically neutral”.
The participation of uniformed ADF personnel at Mardi Gras also makes it a Defence workplace, where exhibitions of unacceptable behaviour are not tolerated.
Defence defines as “unacceptable” behaviour that is “offensive, belittling, abusive” and you don’t have to look far to find examples at Mardi Gras.
Politicians who opposed same-sex marriage, such as Tony Abbott, Fred Nile or Bronwyn Bishop, are vilified.
Floats include the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Shellharbour Hard Shaggers, “No Pride In Turnbull”, Queers against Detention, and the Socialist Alliance, not to mention GlamCocks, and Pup Pride Australia, which advocates the sexual fetish of humans crawling on all fours, with collars and leashes.
These displays follow the NSW Teachers Federation float, naturally, given the nature of the Safe Schools program.
As one former Army officer points out, if the objective is “inclusiveness, it should be extended to include the full spectrum of political views held in the Army”.
Clearly, the Army only values inclusiveness for politically correct views.
For instance, when Army major Bernie Gaynor wanted to march in uniform in the anti-abortion March for the Babies, he was refused permission because the event was “political in nature”.
The Army is engaged in a radical social engineering experiment, rejecting what it regards as an outdated male Anglo culture and segregating its troops according to ethnic, religious, sexual and gender identities which are accorded special privileges as victim groups, in the name of diversity. But Lynn, a candidate for RSL president, says the result is division and discord in an Army that has always been “proudly egalitarian”.
“The Army has been the most inclusive organisation I’ve ever worked in. We didn’t value our mates because of the colour of their skin or their ethnicity or their religious beliefs. They were fellow soldiers. They were our mates.”




....
Taken from: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/the-army-should-be-nonpolitical-so-why-is-it-at-mardi-gras/news-story/57693da79c45f2e75073a9cf9b2a19ba?nk=a319573e6939bc1cad34111996d84efc-1488839843

Common Declaration by Pope Francis and Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby

Statement issued as 19 pairs of Anglican, Roman Catholic bishops sent out on mission

| October 5, 2016 1 Comment |

Pope Francis, right, smiles with Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby at the end of Vespers at the monastery church of San Gregorio al Celio in Rome, Italy, Oct. 5. Photo: REUTERS/Tony Gentile

[Anglican Communion News Service] Pope Francis and Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby have said that they are “undeterred” by the “serious obstacles” to full unity between Anglicans and Roman Catholics.


In a Common Declaration, issued in Rome Oct. 5, the two say that the differences “cannot prevent us from recognizing one another as brothers and sisters in Christ by reason of our common baptism. Nor should they ever hold us back from discovering and rejoicing in the deep Christian faith and holiness we find within each other’s traditions.”
The Common Declaration was made at a service of Vespers in the Church of Saint Gregory on the Caelian Hill in Rome, from where, in 595AD, Pope Gregory sent Augustine to evangelise the Anglo-Saxon people. Augustine became the first archbishop of Canterbury in 597.
During the service, 19 pairs of Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops from across the world were commissioned by the pope and the archbishop before being “sent out” in mission together. Among the 19 pairings are Episcopal Bishop of Tennessee John Bauerschmidt and Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore Dennis Madden.
Pope Francis told them: “Fourteen centuries ago Pope Gregory sent the servant of God, Augustine, first Archbishop of Canterbury, and his companions, from this holy place, to preach the joyful message of the Word of God. Today we send you, dear brothers, servants of God, with this same joyful message of his everlasting kingdom.”
And Welby said: “Our Savior commissioned his disciples saying, ‘Peace be with you’. We too, send you out with his peace, a peace only he can give. May his peace bring freedom to those who are captive and oppressed, and may his peace bind into greater unity the people he has chosen as his own.”

---

Common Declaration

of HIS HOLINESS Pope Francis

and HIS GRACE Justin Welby ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Fifty years ago our predecessors, Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey met in this city hallowed by the ministry and blood of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II with Archbishop Robert Runcie, and later with Archbishop George Carey, and Pope Benedict XVI with Archbishop Rowan Williams, prayed together here in this Church of Saint Gregory on the Caelian Hill from where Pope Gregory sent Augustine to evangelise the Anglo-Saxon people. On pilgrimage to the tombs of these apostles and holy forebears, Catholics and Anglicans recognize that we are heirs of the treasure of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the call to share that treasure with the whole world. We have received the Good News of Jesus Christ through the holy lives of men and women who preached the Gospel in word and deed and we have been commissioned, and empowered by the Holy Spirit, to be Christ’s witnesses “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1: 8). We are united in the conviction that “the ends of the earth” today, is not only a geographical term, but a summons to take the saving message of the Gospel particularly to those on the margins and the peripheries of our societies.
In their historic meeting in 1966, Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Ramsey established the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission to pursue a serious theological dialogue which, “founded on the Gospels and on the ancient common traditions, may lead to that unity in truth, for which Christ prayed”. Fifty years later we give thanks for the achievements of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, which has examined historically divisive doctrines from a fresh perspective of mutual respect and charity. Today we give thanks in particular for the documents of ARCIC II which will be appraised by us, and we await the findings of ARCIC III as it navigates new contexts and new challenges to our unity.
Fifty years ago our predecessors recognized the “serious obstacles” that stood in the way of a restoration of complete faith and sacramental life between us. Nevertheless, they set out undeterred, not knowing what steps could be taken along the way, but in fidelity to the Lord’s prayer that his disciples be one. Much progress has been made concerning many areas that have kept us apart. Yet new circumstances have presented new disagreements among us, particularly regarding the ordination of women and more recent questions regarding human sexuality. Behind these differences lies a perennial question about how authority is exercised in the Christian community. These are today some of the concerns that constitute serious obstacles to our full unity. While, like our predecessors, we ourselves do not yet see solutions to the obstacles before us, we are undeterred. In our trust and joy in the Holy Spirit we are confident that dialogue and engagement with one another will deepen our understanding and help us to discern the mind of Christ for his Church. We trust in God’s grace and providence, knowing that the Holy Spirit will open new doors and lead us into all truth (cf. John 16: 13).
These differences we have named cannot prevent us from recognizing one another as brothers and sisters in Christ by reason of our common baptism. Nor should they ever hold us back from discovering and rejoicing in the deep Christian faith and holiness we find within each other’s traditions. These differences must not lead to a lessening of our ecumenical endeavours. Christ’s prayer at the Last Supper that all might be one (cf. John 17: 20-23) is as imperative for his disciples today as it was at that moment of his impending passion, death and resurrection, and consequent birth of his Church. Nor should our differences come in the way of our common prayer: not only can we pray together, we must pray together, giving voice to our shared faith and joy in the Gospel of Christ, the ancient Creeds, and the power of God’s love, made present in the Holy Spirit, to overcome all sin and division. And so, with our predecessors, we urge our clergy and faithful not to neglect or undervalue that certain yet imperfect communion that we already share.
Wider and deeper than our differences are the faith that we share and our common joy in the Gospel. Christ prayed that his disciples may all be one, “so that the world might believe” (John 17: 21). The longing for unity that we express in this Common Declaration is closely tied to the desire we share that men and women come to believe that God sent his Son, Jesus, into the world to save the world from the evil that oppresses and diminishes the entire creation. Jesus gave his life in love, and rising from the dead overcame even death itself. Christians who have come to this faith, have encountered Jesus and the victory of his love in their own lives, and are impelled to share the joy of this Good News with others. Our ability to come together in praise and prayer to God and witness to the world rests on the confidence that we share a common faith and a substantial measure of agreement in faith.
The world must see us witnessing to this common faith in Jesus by acting together. We can, and must, work together to protect and preserve our common home: living, teaching and acting in ways that favour a speedy end to the environmental destruction that offends the Creator and degrades his creatures, and building individual and collective patterns of behaviour that foster a sustainable and integral development for the good of all. We can, and must, be united in a common cause to uphold and defend the dignity of all people. The human person is demeaned by personal and societal sin. In a culture of indifference, walls of estrangement isolate us from others, their struggles and their suffering, which also many of our brothers and sisters in Christ today endure. In a culture of waste, the lives of the most vulnerable in society are often marginalised and discarded. In a culture of hate we see unspeakable acts of violence, often justified by a distorted understanding of religious belief. Our Christian faith leads us to recognise the inestimable worth of every human life, and to honour it in acts of mercy by bringing education, healthcare, food, clean water and shelter and always seeking to resolve conflict and build peace. As disciples of Christ we hold human persons to be sacred, and as apostles of Christ we must be their advocates.
Fifty years ago Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Ramsey took as their inspiration the words of the apostle: “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3: 13-14). Today, “those things which are behind” –  the painful centuries of separation –have been partially healed by fifty years of friendship. We give thanks for the fifty years of the Anglican Centre in Rome dedicated to being a place of encounter and friendship. We have become partners and companions on our pilgrim journey, facing the same difficulties, and strengthening each other by learning to value the gifts which God has given to the other, and to receive them as our own in humility and gratitude.
We are impatient for progress that we might be fully united in proclaiming, in word and deed, the saving and healing gospel of Christ to all people. For this reason we take great encouragement from the meeting during these days of so many Catholic and Anglican bishops of the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) who, on the basis of all that they have in common, which generations of ARCIC scholars have painstakingly unveiled, are eager to go forward in collaborative mission and witness to the “ends of the earth”. Today we rejoice to commission them and send them forth in pairs as the Lord sent out the seventy-two disciples. Let their ecumenical mission to those on the margins of society be a witness to all of us, and let the message go out from this holy place, as the Good News was sent out so many centuries ago, that Catholics and Anglicans will work together to give voice to our common faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to bring relief to the suffering, to bring peace where there is conflict, to bring dignity where it is denied and trampled upon.
In this Church of Saint Gregory the Great, we earnestly invoke the blessings of the Most Holy Trinity on the continuing work of ARCIC and IARCCUM, and on all those who pray for and contribute to the restoration of unity between us.
Rome, 5 October 2016
HIS GRACE JUSTIN WELBY                                   HIS HOLINESS FRANCIS


....
Taken from: http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2016/10/05/common-declaration-by-pope-francis-and-archbishop-of-canterbury-justin-welby/

Jerusalem 70 AD a Total Destruction (continued)

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“In 70 AD the temple was completely and utterly uprooted by the Romans, thus fulfilling Christ’s prophesy that not one stone would be standing upon another there.

The temple was eradicated from all recognition, so much so that no one could even tell that the building had ever existed”.

 

Bob Cornuke.

 

 

 

 

The holocaust of 70 AD was the subject matter of my article:

 

Jerusalem 70 AD a Total Destruction

 

https://www.academia.edu/27665587/Jerusalem_70_AD_a_Total_Destruction

 

and again, in part, of my:

 

Third Temple and the Red Heifer

 

https://www.academia.edu/15371207/Third_Temple_and_the_Red_Heifer

 

for much of which I was heavily reliant upon the insights of Dr. Ernest L. Martin (e.g. his book, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, 2000).

The chief criticism since levelled against this non-standard interpretation has been that it is thin regarding the matter of archaeological evidence.

That could be (at least partly) due to the fact that it does not accord with the conventional archaeological estimations pertaining to Jerusalem and the Temple.

Former policeman, Bob Cornuke (also influenced by Dr. Martin), has brought to bear his forensic skills on the subject in this compelling article

http://www.baseinstitute.org/pages/temple/22:

 

Temple

 

The Temple Mount is considered to be the historic place of Solomon’s and Herod’s temple. Muslims call it the Harm al-Sharif, the place from which Mohammed went to heaven on his horse named Barack. Even though the Temple Mount is in the most holy site of the Jews and situated right in the middle of Israel it is also solely in the administrative control of Muslims. Jews desperately want to take control of the place, as well as rebuild their temple there. Muslims on-the-other-hand relay a stern warning that if a Jew ever puts one shovel to their professed holy site a war may follow.

It may be surprising to some, but in the fourth century, people were trying to find the lost sites of the former temples of Solomon and Herod. They simply did not know where the temple sites were placed. In 70 AD the temple was completely and utterly uprooted by the Romans, thus fulfilling Christ’s prophesy that not one stone would be standing upon another there. The temple was eradicated from all recognition, so much so that no one could even tell that the building had ever existed. So, in the next 300 years, with so many Jews having been killed or expelled from the land, people were not sure where the correct location of the temple was so four other sites that were proposed. The temple mount was settled on as the site of the lost temple even though the Bible seems to indicate that it is someplace altogether.

Like so many, I have always thought that the location for the temple of Solomon had been proven to be on the traditional Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But, I began to become doubtful of that traditional view of the temple placement after Dr. Paul Feinberg alerted me to the revolutionary work of the late archaeologist and author, Dr. Ernest L. Martin. This research effort would not have been possible without his groundbreaking insights.
However, I hope that my own personal research presented herein offers a bold new chapter in this potentially history-adjusting subject.

Jesus warned His disciples of the coming destruction of the temple and that not one stone of the temple would be left on top of another. Matthew 24:1-2 says, “Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, ‘Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down’.” Christ’s words clearly state that the entire temple, each and every stone, will be dug up, dislodged, and tossed away. It is interesting to note that there are massive stone blocks by the thousands set in the wall supporting the Temple Mount platform. Was Jesus wrong in His prophesying that not one stone would remain standing?

When you look carefully at the Bible verse, “not one stone upon another,” we find that Jesus was actually gone from the temple when He spoke those words. Jesus was walking away when His disciples came up to Him and called His attention to the temple buildings. The verse continues with Christ asking, “Do you not see all these things?”

 
What Jesus is mentioning is the whole of the temple, being seen from a distance of some unknown calibration, but most assuredly down the road some from the temple complex. It was from this space of separation that Christ says that every stone of the temple would be thrown down. He would have been describing the walls, ancillary buildings, and all.

Historian Flavius Josephus wrote that the entirety of the temple was indeed in total ruin and destruction after 70 AD. He went on to say that if he had not personally been in Jerusalem during the war and witnessed the demolition by Titus of the temple that took place there, he wouldn’t have believed it ever existed. In Josephus (Jewish Wars, VII, 1.1) it speaks of widespread destruction in all Jerusalem as well. Archaeology and eye-witness evidence suggests that Jerusalem was destroyed so severely that not much of it was left. However, the foundation walls of what we call today the traditional Temple Mount would not, in all likelihood, be included in the manifest of any destroyed edifices because it was Roman-owned and would be considered separate from Jerusalem by Josephus.

[I] found that Jews at the Wailing Wall, when interviewed, said that the huge high walls of stones standing there today gives testimony that Jesus was flat-wrong and that His proclamation that not one Stone of the Temple will remain standing disqualifies Christ as a being completely truthful.

I however feel that those high stone walls there today are remnants from a former Roman fort occupied by the mighty Tenth Legion (Legio X Fretensis). I also believe that the true site of Solomon’s temple is about a thousand feet South of the temple mount in the City of David. This would mean that Jesus was correct in His prophetic words and that each and every stone, to the very last was one, was cast down.

WHERE WAS THE TEMPLE?

The garrison of Fort Antonia in Jerusalem was as big as several cities according to Josephus housing approximately 6,000 men plus the needed support staff. All told, as many as 10,000 personnel that serves served there. But this huge fort has [n]ever been found in Jerusalem by Archaeologists. I feel that archaeologists have not found the mighty Roman fort is because it is the huge temple mount complex and that tradition has concealed it from historical notice.

A FOURTH CENTURY EYE WITNESS

In 333 AD, the Pilgrim of Bordeaux wrote that while looking east from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, he saw stone walls with foundations going down to the Tyropoean Valley. Keep in mind that the pilgrim was looking due east and was staring directly at the traditional Temple Mount area. He said absolutely nothing about it being the temple site, but rather he describes the stone walls as the Roman praetorium. This means that the walls would have survived the Roman/Jewish war of 66-70, because they were property of the Roman fort itself. The praetorium there, according to the pilgrim, was the place where Jesus was sentenced to death. So, in effect, if we are to believe the Pilgrim of Bordeaux, the dome over the Dome of the Rock, which is a Muslim shrine, would be the very site where Jesus was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate.

In the sixth century the Piacenza Pilgrim wrote of an oblong stone at the Roman praetorium as well, and described this rock as the place that Pilate heard the case of Christ.

 
EVIDENCE FROM THE MASADA COMMANDER

One of the dramatic events that Josephus describes in his work is the plight of the fleeing rebel Jews who went to the fortress in Masada. Eleazar Bin Jari (commander of the Jewish rebels at Masada) in 73 AD encouraged those in the high mountain fortress that suicide was the only answer rather than surrendering. This same Eleazar memorialized the following about the destruction in Jerusalem: “It [Jerusalem] is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing left but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those [the Romans] that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins.” Eleazar was documenting that Jerusalem was eradicated with nothing standing, except the Roman camp called the Antonia Garrison Fort with its high stone walls still standing. It can be surmised that years later, when the Roman fort was mostly still standing and subsequent conquerors came to the place of those high stone block walls, they must have believed that the magnificent fortress had to be something of major importance. To some, it had to be the site of Solomon’s temple

THE TWO BRIDGES

Josephus wrote that the distance between the temple and the Roman fort was exactly one stade (approximately 600 feet). Josephus recorded that King Herod built two side-by-side bridges (Jewish Wars, VI.2,6, and II.15,6) connecting the gap between the temple and the Roman fort (refer to Cornfeld translation as well as The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot, p.413).  
The fort was there to protect the temple by the Romans and also allow them to keep a watch over the often insubordinate and rebellious Jews. These two side-by-side colonnades must have looked like two modern raised narrow freeways (or as “limbs” as Josephus describes them) that spanned the 600-foot gap between the temple and fort.

According to Ernest Martin, Fort Antonia was located on the north side of the temple (City of David location). If, in fact, the temple was positioned in the old City of David then it would fit perfectly with the two colonnades’ separation that Josephus describes as linking Fort Antonia at its southwest angle. That would put the whole of the temple’s northern wall as being parallel to the southern wall of Fort Antonia with a gap of approximately 600 feet distance (north to south) between the two.

CITY OF DAVID

Three thousand years ago, the City of David was about 12 acres in size and had an estimated population of only around 2,000 people. It is a finger of land just south of the present traditional Temple Mount. As a former policeman, I would like at this point to lay out a linear case for the City of David as the one and only place for the temple, but first a brief history.

The Jebusite fortification was a fortress, albeit a small one, but it had what David wanted. It was strategically situated, had a high walled castle-looking complex rising majestically from the Kidron Valley. A spring flowed abundantly inside with clear pure water which made it even more desirable.

The Bible tells us that while David and his army were outside looking up at the Jebusite stronghold, there, standing defiant on the top of the walls were men hollering down mockingly.

Second Samuel 5:6-10 describes it this way: “You shall not come in here; but the blind and the lame will repel you,” thinking, “David cannot come in here.” Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion (that is, the City of David). Now David said on that day, “Whoever climbs up by way of the water shaft and defeats the Jebusites (the lame and the blind, who are hated by David’s soul), he shall be chief and captain. “Therefore they say, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” Then David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the City of David.

David took control of what the Bible calls the Stronghold of Zion (Metsudat Tsion), that is, the City of David. These last two locales (Stronghold of Zion and the City of David) are the huge keys to solving the riddle as to where the true temple is located. But to keep on a straight path regarding the true temple site, let’s go back to David capturing the City of David from the Jebusites. After he was in his newly taken fortress, David was visited by an angel of the Lord that pointed out the desired patch of real estate within the city walls that David was to purchase from Araunah (Ornan) the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:18-25). This land purchase was for a threshing floor—usually comprised of a level area paved with flat stones where grain is tossed in the air and the wind carries away the lighter chaff (worthless husks of broken straw) and leaves the heavier kernel of wheat to fall on the threshing floor. It is interesting that David had captured the 12-acre fortress by force, yet God was now ordering David to pay money to the Jebusite owner for a threshing floor. But this comment in Scripture is a huge clue for the temple location. In 2 Chronicles 3:1 we read: “Now Solomon began to build the temple at the house of the Lord at Jerusalem…at the place that David had prepared on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.” This verse conclusively says that the temple will be built in the strict boundary of the City of David at the place of the threshing floor bought from the Jebusite. That can only be in the City of David and this makes it impossible for the Temples to have been on the Temple mount.

A CITY LOST

Over time, the temple was built by Solomon in the City of David, but it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC, only to have other successive temples rebuilt in far less grandeur …. Author Ahron Horovitz says, “The City of David was so completely forgotten that during the Byzantine Period even Jerusalem’s biblical name “Zion”’ shifted to the southern portion of the “Western Hill” which is called Mount Zion to this day. The Byzantine “Church of Holy Zion” (Hagia Zion), built in 390 C.E. reinforced the mistake.”
Since the temple was reduced to rubble in 70 AD, the City of David was then lost to weeds and abandonment. As time passed, no one knew where it really was. And since the Stronghold of Zion was in the City of David, Zion had vanished as well. The City of David was gone; its walls were no more—and the huge clue for the temple being located by the threshing floor was erased from history as well. And when something has vanished that held such huge importance, people will stick a flag of indelible proclamation in the ground and make said declaration purely out of need. When you go to the Holy City today, road signs will point to the upper city and the signs read “Zion,” with an arrow pointing away from the real, original location of Zion in the City of David.

For almost two millennia, Zion and the City of David laid silently together, buried in a forgotten tomb of earth. In time, it would be a windswept field known only to the farmer’s plow or a place to dump trash. Zion was forgotten, that is, until explorers came to Jerusalem with a pick in one hand and a Bible in the other. These explorers found the forgotten city with its ancient gurgling Gihon Spring. This hidden subterranean world would cry out that the City of David has been found and Zion was once more known.

….

When the City of David was missing people in the middle ages looked to the most attractive feature in Jerusalem as a potential candidate site for their lost temple. The scant few Jews living in Jerusalem then, along with the influx of Christian pilgrims and crusaders, began suggesting that the impressive high-walled fortress of the Dome of the Rock was the actual foundation stones of Solomon’s temple. After all, it was the most impressive structure that was still standing in Jerusalem, so some assumed it must have certain historical prominence—and that prominence was considered to be the temple itself.

Around 1169 Benjamin Tudela proclaimed emphatically that Muslim Haram al- Sharif, The Roman Fort Antonia, and the traditional Temple Mount platform was to be forevermore known as the proper placement of Solomon’s temple. Tudela made this pronouncement with such surety and vigor that it was dogmatically adopted and is fervently accepted as uncontested fact to this day.

Eusebius, from the third and fourth century was curator of the Library at Caesarea. He was a renowned scholar both then and today. He wrote, “The hill called Zion and Jerusalem, the building there, that is to say, the temple, the Holy of Holies, the Altar, and whatever else was there dedicated to the glory of God have been utterly removed or shaken, in fulfillment of the word.” He further notes only a few lines later that sadly, after the ruin of Zion (City of David), the very stones from “the temple itself and from its ancient sanctuary were scavenged from the temple site in Zion and used for the construction of “idol temples and of theatres for the populous.”

Ancient Hecateus of Abdera also testified that the temple was not only in Zion, but located “nearly in the very center of the City of David.”

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

 

….
First Kings 1:38-39: “So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the Cherethites and the Pelethites went down and had Solomon ride on King David’s mule and took him to Gihon. Then Zadok, the priest took a horn of oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon....” The Bible is actually saying here that Solomon was taken to the Gihon Spring and at that very spot the priest enters the tabernacle that held the Ark of the Covenant and gets oil to anoint the newly crowned king.” The tabernacle with the ark in its hold was at Gihon Spring in the City of David at Zion. This event happened at the same Gihon Spring where David set the tent tabernacle most assuradly in very close proximity to the threshing floor area.

Aristeas, a visitor from Egypt who recorded a description of the temple and Jerusalem about fifty years after Alexander the Great. He was memorialized by Eusebius, who quoted him as observing, “There is an inexhaustible reservoir of water, as would be expected from an abundant spring gushing up naturally from within the [temple]”. This prodigious water that was seen by Aristeas in the temple was witnessed long before the two aqueducts were built in the time of the Hasmoneans (the Maccabees) as well as Pilate, to channel water to Jerusalem from the south of Bethlehem.

Tacitus, the Roman historian, 400 years after Aristeas and recorded that the temple at Jerusalem had a natural spring of water that welled from its interior. Again, these references could only be describing the Gihon Spring. It is located close to what is referred to as the Ophel, which is a bulge of the earth abutting the City of David (Zion) laying just to the south, and roughly about 1,000 feet, from the Temple Mount. There is no other such spring(s) anywhere else in Jerusalem. However, there is a place called the En-Rogel which is situated about a third of a mile southeast of the City of David, but this is not a spring at all, rather a well. The spring connection, especially a robust gushing spring, seems to be like a laser pointer aimed at the City of David and not at the Temple Mount as the temple site.

Another fascinating verse that makes it irrefutable that a spring/fountain needs to be a fundamental component of the temple location: “A fountain shall flow from the house of the Lord...” (Joel 3:18). Can it be any clearer that a water source (spring/fountain) flows from the House of the Lord (temple) which held the Ark of the Covenant? This verse is more solidly dogmatic in its pronouncements because it says unequivocally that a spring flows from the temple. The temple would logically need a prodigious amount of water (Gihon Spring) for cleaning up after all the animal blood sacrifices. Gihon Spring is the only spot that has enough water for the temple sacrifices in all of Jerusalem. It appears that the Roman garrison could not obtain water from this spring because it was holy water for temple usage. If the Romans even tried to take one drop, it would result in violent rioting, so they were forced to bring water from south of Bethlehem, as they did via aqueducts that fed the many underground cisterns storage at the purported fort.
There is yet another verse containing Zion in connection with a spring and the ark as well. The psalmist wrote, “And of Zion it will be said… Both the singers and the players on instruments say, ‘All my springs are within you.’” (Psalm 87:5,7). This verse has the words singers and players on instruments which is associated in the Bible with a processional carrying the ark (Psalm 68). The words springs are within you would be consistent with the Gihon Spring as well as the word Zion, which is connected with both the temple and the City of David.

Ezekiel 47:1-2 speaks of a spring as well… “Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the temple faced east; the water was flowing from under the right side of the temple, south of the alter. He brought me out by way of the north gate, and led me around on the outside to the outer gateway that faces east; and there was water running out on the right side.”
Hebrew writings, cited in a book by Zev Vilnay, also mention the Gihon Spring area as the place for the future temple. “…At that time a great stream shall flow forth from the Holy Temple and its name is Gihon.” His book refers to Jewish writings that specifically declare that the Gihon Spring was where the high priest immersed in the spring’s water. The special place was called the Bath of Ishmael and it was used for purification by the high priest on the Day of Atonement.

 

THE CLEANSING STREAM

It has been said that High Priest Rabbi Yishmael from the second temple period used the Gihon as a ritual bath for purification prior to entering the temple: “Near there is a cave. People go down to it by stairs. It is full of pure water, and there is a tradition that it is the ritual bath of Rabbi Yshmael the High Priest.” (as quoted in the name of Rabbi Moshe, in: Moshe Ben Menachem Mendl Reicher, Sharrei Yerushalayim Shar`ar 8.33). It is interesting that a second temple period arch has been found above a stone staircase descending to the Gihon Spring, giving evidence that the spring was in service at the time of Herod’s temple. It was surmised in the book, The City of David, written by Ahron Horovitz (p. 213), that the spring served as an entranceway to those coming to purify themselves at the time of the second temple era. If this were the case, then a huge question begs asking: if priests and people purified themselves at the Gihon Spring prior to entering the temple, why would they then walk almost a quarter mile to the traditional Temple Mount area? That trek of distance and likely human/animal interaction would make them unclean and unworthy to enter any temple precincts. It would be like a doctor scrubbing up for surgery and then walking a quarter of a mile on dusty streets as well as coming in contact with unwashed contaminants along the way. Doctors would not do this and priests, in their holy duties at the temple, would not be purified in the waters of the Gihon only to later comingle with potential sullying elements.

Even as far back as Moses and the time of the tabernacle, spring water was essential in the purification ceremony for priests. Josephus writes in Jewish Antiquities (Book 3,8.6), “Moses had sprinkled Aaron’s vestments, himself, and his sons, with the blood of the beasts that were killed, and had purified them with spring water and ointment, they became God’s priests.” Spring water (moving pure water) and ointments (olive oil) were absolute essential needs for purification rituals. The only running water in the desert that was available to Moses was the water from the split rock—and the only spring water available in Jerusalem was the Gihon Spring, which was in the City of David, within the stone wall boundaries of the stronghold of Zion.

THE ARREST OF PAUL

In writing one of my previous books, The Lost Shipwreck of Paul, I spent years researching this amazing man. In Acts 21, he is the focus of the story once again: Paul entered the temple in Jerusalem after having publicly fraternized with his “unclean Gentile friends.” Upon hearing that Paul had walked into this sacred compound with his filthy friends in tow, the local people quickly formed a mob and descended on the temple complex. Once inside, the irate throng grabbed Paul and dragged him out of the gate, beating him with the intent to kill. As news of the angry rioters reached the Roman commander in the garrison, the officer rushed with a company of soldiers to take control of the situation.

At that point, something took place that really grabbed my attention. I read in Acts 21:32. The Roman commander ... “immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them.” …. This verse tells us that the Roman soldiers went down to get Paul.
This should raise a significant red flag for anyone believing in the Temple Mount because it is a high-walled fortress-looking edifice. You can only go down from there. If The Temple Mount was the place of Paul’s riot scene, then the big question is where would someone go down from to reach Paul. There would have to be a fort floating somewhere in the clouds to match the biblical account. And it is even more interesting later in verse 35, where it reads that when Paul reached the stairs he had to be carried up by the soldiers. So, according to the Bible, we have to have stairs descending from the Roman garrison to the lower temple gates and then they had to carry Paul going back up into the Roman garrison (traditional Temple Mount platform). This can only apply if the temple, for instance, is in the old City of David in the area of the Gihon Spring.

A TRADITION BORN

Roman Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD) rebuilt the destroyed city of Jerusalem, renamed it Aelia Capitolina, and kept Jews from entering. From the time of the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate (middle of the fourth century) until the Arabs conquered Jerusalem in 638 AD, the Temple Mount had remained an abandoned garbage dump. The Crusaders later seized the Holy City in 1099 and placed a huge gilt cross on the famed Muslim Dome and called it “Templum Domini “(The Lord’s Temple). Because of this, a tradition was born!

TIME IS CRUEL TO TRUTH

In the twelfth century, the Muslims took the Dome of the Rock back and drove out the Christians. They put the crescent symbol of Islam back atop the Dome where it still sits today. The message all of this sends is that there have been huge spans of centuries where Romans kicked out Jews and Christians from the land, as well as Muslims enacting quarantine on Jews and Christians. During those long periods of conquest, the Temple Mount, as well as the City of David, were often lonely, forsaken places that knew only the stench of decaying trash or the sound of wind sifting through bent weeds.

 

[End of quote]

 

 

 

Herod did not build the ‘Wailing Wall’

 

 

“[In] Jerusalem I met with Eli Shukron a famed archaeologist. He … told me … the Western Wailing wall believed by every scholar to have been built … by Herod the Great … Herod did not build the wall at all. He told me that he found a coin dated to 20 AD beneath a huge stone block under the very lowest layer of foundation stones.”

 

Bob Cornuke.

 

 

 

Continuing with the latter part of Bob Cornuke’s article, we encounter further controversies (http://www.baseinstitute.org/pages/temple/22):

 

Temple

 

….

AN ARCHITECTS PERSPECTIVE

Adding to the controversy surrounding the temple location is an Israeli architect in Tel Aviv, Tuvia Sagiv. His interesting observations are based on height and angle of sight and elevations found in historical accounts of King Herod Agrippa. I am not an architect and have no way of verifying his claims; however, Sagiv is an expert in his field and has conducted extensive research of the Temple Mount area and has calculated its angles and datings. He writes the following in relation to the view that King Herod Agrippa had into the Temple based upon Flavius Josephus. “...Agrippa built a huge hole in his palace...The palace had belonged to the Hasmonean family and was built on a high place. The king was able to observe from the palace what was happening in the temple. The people of Jerusalem objected to this because it was not the tradition to observe what was taking place in the temple, especially the animal sacrifices. Consequently, they built a high wall in the inner court above the western arcade....”. So what did Agrippa actually see?

According to Tuvia Sagiv, Herod Agrippa’s palace was west of the Temple Mount, at or near the present day Citadel and Jaffa Gate. “The altar in the temple cannot be directly seen looking from the west because the temple building prevents any view. The only way to see something going on in the Temple Courts is through the passageways between the temple wall and the walls of the court. If we were high enough, from the north we could see into the sacrifice-slaughter area, and viewing from the south we could see the altar’s ramp. Moreover, without knowing exactly the location of Herod Agrippa’s palace, using vertical sections, we discovered that the western court wall prevented any view from the western court, even without the addition of walls. In order to have seen what went on in the court, a building whose height was 31-47 meters above the ground (10-16 floors) was needed. Without mechanical equipment it would have been very difficult to climb to such a height, especially when concerning a building whose purpose was domestic and residential. Even from the highest towers in Jerusalem, the Phasael and Hippicus Towers, there was no way to see what was being done in the temple court during the time of the Second Temple. The height of these towers was 70-90 cubits, approximately 35-45 meters.”5 Tuvia Sagiv concluded that both Agrippa’s horizontal and vertical angles of sight prove that it is impossible to locate the Holy of Holies or the altar in the region of the Dome of the Rock.

UNDERGROUND TREASURE

[In] Jerusalem I met with Eli Shukron a famed archaeologist. He has since become a friend of mine. He told me that the Western Wailing wall believed by every scholar to have been built … by Herod the Great. Eli said that Herod did not build the wall at all. He told me that he found a coin dated to 20 AD beneath a huge stone block under the very lowest layer of foundation stones.”

The coin was an ancient bronze and that of Valerius Gratus, Prefect under Tiberius15-26 AD. The minting date of the coin as well as its earliest distribution was vintage 20 AD, according to Eli’s explanation. I did the math, Herod died in 4 BC. Now if Eli had dug out a coin from under the lowest layer of stones in the Western Wall which dated to 20 AD, Herod died at least 24 years before the coin somehow made its way under a stone so low in the foundation of the Temple Mount?

Eli also took me and some members of my research team to a recently unearthed underground sanctuary. He told me that just a few individuals had ever been allowed there. Eli had found this place about two years earlier, and since then workers have painstakingly been sifting dirt and hauling it away. Eli said, “This is a worship area, We do not know exactly what it is, but it is from the first temple period and possibly even before.” Then waving his hand in a sweeping motion, he told us, “This is the only worship area in the City of David. Everything is perfect.”

Eli then pointed to a carved-out hole in the stone floor and said, “This is an olive press to make oil.” My heart and mind raced. Leviticus 21:12 tells us: “...nor shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God: for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him.” Once the oil was sprinkled on the priest, he was forbidden to leave the sanctuary. This sacred place was at ground zero—right where I thought the temple to be. So, logically, one might assume that if the priest had the anointing oil present, this well may be the actual temple location. Eli then walked over and bent down, pointing to a hand-cut straight channel running the full length of the room. He stood and said matter-of-fact, even though a sledge hammer would have had as much subtlety to my brain, “This is a channel for blood and, as you can see, this room is raised. It is here there was an altar for sacrificing small animals, such as sheep.” His extended hand showed us the path of draining blood, and he explained, “The blood went into the floor over there and the animals were tied up here.”

He then stepped over to a corner in the stone wall and his fingers poked through to a hole in the edge of the stone. He told us, “This is where a ring was set to tie up the animal being slaughtered. Eli smiled, as proud as if he had made the sanctuary himself. “Everything is perfect; few people have been in here to see it.” Eli continued, “I knew that something happened here I did not know what? When I started to clean it (take away the dirt) I began to understand. This is the place of something huge and we are in the heart of it. This is an area of worship and praying and a place where people connected with God. And from that we understand what happened here in the time of the first temple period and even before.” I asked Eli, “How close are we to the Gihon Spring?” He answered, “About ten meters (30 feet). You have everything together here close to the spring, close to the water, living water —and we know that a place of worship to God is near to water.” He paused, “This is the foundation of the earth that connects with God.” As he continued to show our team around, Eli pointed out two small recessed areas about the size of a low ceiling walk-in closet. One of the spaces was empty but the other had an upright stone approximately the size of a cemetery headstone. There was no writing on it, which was typical for ancient Jews. Eli explained that the fact it was still standing upright after all these years was a sign that somebody long ago considered this to be an extremely sacred place.

It was at that moment that the confluence of intellect and emotion collided. I knew where I was—somewhere in the complex of Solomon’s temple Eli had said that there were many other areas that needed excavating, and I assumed that treasures of historic significance were only a few feet away from where I was standing. More excavations will follow and I wondered what the dirt was silently holding in its concealing embrace.

We were in the City of David, the site of the temple. How could we doubt the significance of this special place? It was right in the well-defined precincts of the stronghold of Zion. The nearby flowing Gihon Spring closed the target to a much more defined area. This had to be very near to the threshing floor that David had bought from the Jebusite. I believe that this was, is, and shall forever be ground zero of the temple placement.