Sensation or forgery? Researchers hail dramaticFirst Temple period finding!

Ha'aretz Daily ^ | 1-13-3 | By Nadav Shragai

[vannrox]

Very Intersting.

[Fractal Trader]

You mean "vry intrstng" ? : - )

[Darksheare]

"which appears to furnish proof of the existence of the Temple"

We know there was a Temple.
We know the Romans burned it down.
So why are these guys so bent on hedging and saying that they have to prove it existed?
The Romans made the Arch of Titus in commemoration of flattening the place.

If authentic, it'll go a little towards squelching the morons who insist there never was a Temple there. 'Course there are those types who insist there never was a Temple, and will never accept that truth even when presented with irrefutable evidence.

[aruanan]

But sources have indicated that the writing surfaced in the Temple Mount area as a result of widescale excavation work done in recent years in the area by Muslims, and that Palestinians relayed the fragment to a major collector of antiquities in Jerusalem.

Must have been something they overlooked in their attempt to rid the site of anything that substantiates the historical basis for Israel as a nation that antedates the upstart Muslims.

[sharktrager]

No, I think he's very series about all this.

[Puppage]

at the end of the ninth century B.C.E

How PC!!!

[yeetch!]

"We know there was a Temple.
We know the Romans burned it down."

As I recall the FIRST Temple was destroyed about 786BC by The Caldeans (Persians). The Second Temple was built 70 years later the remains of which are visible in the wailing wall. could someone verivy?

[Dataman]

Curious?

[harrym]

And once again "BCE"???? When did Before Christ and Anno Domini drop off the map and this Common Era B.S. pop up? It just seemed to slip in there with no announcement or reason given or consensus taken. Like going to the metric system without really telling anyone. If we are going from year "0" each way, what is the signficance of that year? It is (supposedly, probably not accurately) the year designated as the birth of Christ. Our calendar system has been based on this for centuries. How come a bunch of politically correct a-holes get to change everything at will? When my grandson asks what the A.D. means on the dates on old buildings do I have to go through a long explanation of how it used to be but is no more and when he asks why, what is my response (remember he is only 4 and I never swear around him).

[Charles Henrickson]

As I recall the FIRST Temple was destroyed about 786BC by The Caldeans (Persians). The Second Temple was built 70 years later the remains of which are visible in the wailing wall. could someone verivy?

The first temple was completed by King Solomon around 960 B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians under King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. After the Babylonian Captivity, the second temple was built, under Zerubbabel's leadership, and dedicated in 516 B.C. That temple was renovated and expanded by Herod the Great, starting around 20 B.C. The temple was destroyed finally by the Romans, under Genreal Titus, in A.D. 70. It has never been rebuilt. All that remains are some stones visible in the Western ("Wailing") Wall.

[Darksheare]

A.D. 70, the burning of the Temple of Herod.
Built by Herod the Great to appease his new subjects.
The Arch of Titus commemorates this.
I'm surprised at how many people don't know this.

[Darksheare]

And AD 70 still predates the Muslims by quite a few years, last I knew.

[Ancesthntr]

FYI, the phrase "B.C.E." is, and has been for some time, used by Jews who do not believe that Jesus was/is the Messiah. It means "Before the Common Era." Notice that this report appeared in Ha'aretz Daily, which is an Israeli newspaper.

You might also take note of the fact that Jesus was what today would be called an Orthodox Jew who would undoubtedly use the same term of reference. There is no record of Jesus ever using a different calendar than the traditional Hebrew calendar which, FYI, has been in use for at least 1,000 years longer than any version of the calendar presently used by most of the world.

You appear to be either incredibly ignorant or incredibly insensitive to others' beliefs if you can't accept that others may believe differently than you do. The whole concept of "PC" is, to be sure, a load of crap at best. But this has NOTHING to do with PC. It is a simple unwillingness by those who believe differently from you to adopt your language and your points of reference. Oh, by the way, it is not intended as an insult to you or your religion - it is merely speaking in terms that are acceptable to the writer and most of his/her intended audience - and it has always been and will always be just that.

You both need to either educate yourselves better, read more carefully or open your minds a bit - or all three.

[Ancesthntr]

FYI, the Western Wall (also called the "Wailing Wall") was not part of the 2nd Temple or the Temple complex itself. When Herod's workers/slaves expanded the Temple complex, his engineers found that expanding the upper portion would require the reinforcement of the mountain, in order to make certain that all of that additional earth (and the buildings on top) didn't collapse due to lack of support.

This small portion of the retaining wall around the entire Temple complex has been revered by Jews for nearly 2 millenia because a) it is all that is left; and b) a portion of the Wall is the closest that one can come to where the Holy of Holies (which, in the First Temple, is where the Ark of the Covenant rested) is believed to have been.

[Puppage]

Geez, can you be any MORE sensitive? I'm well aware of the WORD ORIGIN, thank you very much. I don't need a missive from you on the history of an acronym, or world religion. So, why don't you take a gander into the kitchen & pour yourself a BIG glass of calm the hell down.

[Ancesthntr]

1) I'm not really very sensitive - I've taken verbal insults all of my life and somehow managed to survive. In case you hadn't noticed, I also addressed Harrym, whose post was lots less restrained than either yours or mine. Perhaps I should have addressed you guys separately, but the server (or maybe my connection) has been so slow that I thought I'd save the time.

However, the point remains that this reference to "B.C.E." in the article was anything but PC - a simple glance at the top of the page would have shown both of you that it was written by a presumably Jewish writer for an Israeli paper, whose audience doesn't hold the same beliefs as you do. I could only understand your angst at the "PC" of this phrase IF it had been written by some PC non-Jew writing for a paper whose audience wasn't overwhelmingly Jewish. In short, my main message is : Pay attention before you spout off.

[Puppage]

Perhaps, in THIS instance I will give you your argument. However, religion aside, the B.C.E. being used in schools, and newspapers, etc. is most definately an act of political correction. How do you feel about AD being written as CE or Common Era? Are you now going to give me the history of THAT acronym, too?

[Puppage]

Also, just because YOU'RE not personaly offended by the B.C.E. does NOT make it a non politically correct term.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Am I correct that the reason the Romans tore apart the stones of the Temple, as Jesus predicted would happen, was in order to retrieve the gold which had melted and run down between the stones when they burnt it?

[Charles Henrickson]

Am I correct that the reason the Romans tore apart the stones of the Temple, as Jesus predicted would happen, was in order to retrieve the gold which had melted and run down between the stones when they burnt it?

In Book VII of The Wars of the Jews, the first-century historian Flavius Josephus records that in the months after the destruction of Jerusalem (in A.D. 70), the Romans (and also some other scavengers) dug up the foundation of the city looking for plunder, which included gold. I could not find any place where he gets as precise as to describe that it was the gold that had melted and run down between the stones.