whats under solomons temple?

[carlinspace]

What historical evidence is there that Solomons temple even existed. Other than religious brain m********ion (the bible) all they found was a little clay tablet that was supposedly an invoice for renovations on the temple before it burnt down - and I think that may have been proved a fake!

Heres a good one. The minatour is under Solomons temple sitting on the ark of the covenant drinking out of the holy grail while little fat cherubs play lovely music and shoot arrows of love at each other.

[questionmark]

What historical evidence is there that Solomons temple even existed. Other than religious brain m********ion (the bible) all they found was a little clay tablet that was supposedly an invoice for renovations on the temple before it burnt down - and I think that may have been proved a fake!

The Golan tablet? a 100% fake, just as many other artifacts this guy produced so Bible Thumpers could prove that its content was veracious...

Now, I've been wondering how long it would take before somebody comes up with the fact that we know neither location nor if this temple existed at all... which also applies to this "legendary" king...

[kmt_sesh]

What historical evidence is there that Solomons temple even existed. Other than religious brain m********ion (the bible) all they found was a little clay tablet that was supposedly an invoice for renovations on the temple before it burnt down - and I think that may have been proved a fake!

While it's certainly debatable whether Solomon ever even existed (as with so many things biblical, there's no evidence for him outside the Old Testament), I don't see any reason to doubt the existence of the Temple itself. It may not have been quite as portrayed in the Old Testament, but chalking up the entire Bible as falsification is a gross oversimplification. Much of it has been proven to be fiction, but parts of it are indeed historical (this is from my own perspective in researching ancient Israel's encounters with Egypt). Even if all we have to go by is the Bible, the Temple figures so prominently in the religion of the early Hebrews that I don't have any trouble believing some kind of temple existed in the City of David (i.e., the "old city").

After all, archaeology has revealed important information about the Temple in the time of Herod. I've seen some architectural features on display at the Field Museum. The monument commissioned by Herod cannot be realistically doubted. As for the Temple in the time of Solomon, whoever he may have been (or may not have been), I agree that very little is known by comparison.

Heres a good one. The minatour is under Solomons temple sitting on the ark of the covenant drinking out of the holy grail while little fat cherubs play lovely music and shoot arrows of love at each other.

The question is, did the Minotaur observe kosher strictures?

[questionmark]

While it's certainly debatable whether Solomon ever even existed (as with so many things biblical, there's no evidence for him outside the Old Testament), I don't see any reason to doubt the existence of the Temple itself. It may not have been quite as portrayed in the Old Testament, but chalking up the entire Bible as falsification is a gross oversimplification. Much of it has been proven to be fiction, but parts of it are indeed historical (this is from my own perspective in researching ancient Israel's encounters with Egypt). Even if all we have to go by is the Bible, the Temple figures so prominently in the religion of the early Hebrews that I don't have any trouble believing some kind of temple existed in the City of David (i.e., the "old city").

The question is, did the Minotaur observe kosher strictures?

There is absolutely no doubt that a place of worship existed, the question is whether it was in Jerusalem or elsewhere and who built it.

A temple does not need to be a gigantic complex, a smaller building capable of holding a few hundred would have been sufficient in the first centuries of Judaism. And I doubt that a building that size would have had a gigantic cellar to keep "secrets".

Ah... did you not know that most of the strictures come from a time after Salomon (if he existed)? About 50% - 70% percent were cooked up during the Babylonian exile.

[kmt_sesh]

There is absolutely no doubt that a place of worship existed, the question is whether it was in Jerusalem or elsewhere and who built it.

A temple does not need to be a gigantic complex, a smaller building capable of holding a few hundred would have been sufficient in the first centuries of Judaism. And I doubt that a building that size would have had a gigantic cellar to keep "secrets".

I think I see where you going with this. I would have to agree. I believe all of the building projects early biblical scholars attributed to Solomon have since been assigned to other figures and/or times. I personally do have to doubt the existence of Solomon and chalk it up to more mytho-historical PR work on the part of post-exilic clerics, but perhaps I'm mistaken. However, I most definitely doubt that the earliest temple was some grand, gleaming edifice. I would agree with you that it was probably much simpler in function and design, in keeping with the archaeological evidence that the Jerusalem of the early Judaic period was actually a kind of unimpressive, backwater town.

Ah... did you not know that most of the strictures come from a time after Salomon (if he existed)? About 50% - 70% percent were cooked up during the Babylonian exile.

LOL I was just joking. I honestly have no idea when kosher guidelines came into existence. It's an amusing image nonetheless--the Minotaur keeping kosher.

[Cadetak]

Wouldn't the temple be like the worst place to hide secrets?

If you were in the market for some Judeo-Christian treasure wouldn't the first place you go looking be at their legendary headquarters?

[sinewave]

What' under Solomon's Temple? Maybe Solomon's basement?

[+susieice]

Wouldn't the temple be like the worst place to hide secrets?

If you were in the market for some Judeo-Christian treasure wouldn't the first place you go looking be at their legendary headquarters?

I don't know. If you wanted to hide valuable things in secret and you knew you had to do it in a hurry because the enemy (the romans) was at the door, a good place to go is down if you can conceal the entrance. The Templar Knights spent years digging under the remnants of the temple of Solomon. Has anyone ever really seen the Vatican records from the time of the formation of the Templars to the time of the prosecutions of the Templars? I'm sure the papacy kept some kind of record of what was involved with the relationship they had with them and what secrets the Templars may have been using against the church. They kept thorough records of everything else.

[Cadetak]

I don't know. If you wanted to hide valuable things in secret and you knew you had to do it in a hurry because the enemy (the romans) was at the door, a good place to go is down if you can conceal the entrance. The Templar Knights spent years digging under the remnants of the temple of Solomon. Has anyone ever really seen the Vatican records from the time of the formation of the Templars to the time of the prosecutions of the Templars? I'm sure the papacy kept some kind of record of what was involved with the relationship they had with them and what secrets the Templars may have been using against the church. They kept thorough records of everything else.

It's like having a fat brother and he's trying to get your cookies so you hide the cookies in the cookie jar and hope your brother is stupid.

It just seems that if there are any treasures they were never at Solomon's Temple or they were moved when it became too hot. Even so, by now any treasures that were there are long gone...somebody stole them when it was destroyed, the church came back for them, or the treasures were destroyed.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Cadetak

[kmt_sesh]

Wouldn't the temple be like the worst place to hide secrets?

If you were in the market for some Judeo-Christian treasure wouldn't the first place you go looking be at their legendary headquarters?

A very good observation, Cadetak. Then again, if we go with pure logic, we'd have to abandon the fun of pretending Dan Brown-style fiction is actually fact.

[TheSearcher]

A very good observation, Cadetak. Then again, if we go with pure logic, we'd have to abandon the fun of pretending Dan Brown-style fiction is actually fact.

Even Dan Brown himself doesn't say that. He says "inspired by facts". There is a difference. Besides, Cadetak makes a good point, hiding the most valuable object you got in the most visible place is hardly a sign of intelligence.

Even in those days, the object in the temple was most likely a fake, a decoy if you will. The real precious objects would be stored somewhere entirely else, better hidden or better out of sight.

Edited September 7, 2009 by TheSearcher

[carlinspace]

The Templar Knights spent years digging under the remnants of the temple of Solomon.

Because they were Christian fanatics basing their logic on religious propaganda. If a child had immense power and controlled an army - he would probably send it to the North pole in search of Santa's workshop.

[questionmark]

The Templar Knights spent years digging under the remnants of the temple of Solomon.

They spent years excavating Herodes' temple... which is not the same (in fact is some places they left it like a Swiss cheese). At the time of the Templars nobody knew anymore if or where Salomon's was.

[+susieice]

So what could they have brought back from the crusade that gave them the kind of wealth and power that they had? It's my understanding they served only under the Pope. Religion or not, the papacy endowed them with a great amount of power for just being some of the many knights who went off on the crusades. Just wondering, wouldn't the Vatican archives have manuscripts from that time detailing the Templars rise and fall?

There's still rumors that there are underground vaults and tunnels under the Dome of the Rock. That's where the Hebrew religion says the restored temple should be built. Cause of a lot of conflict. Is that not where the Wailing Wall is?

Edited September 7, 2009 by susieice

[jaylemurph]

So what could they have brought back from the crusade that gave them the kind of wealth and power that they had? It's my understanding they served only under the Pope. Religion or not, the papacy endowed them with a great amount of power for just being some of the many knights who went off on the crusades. Just wondering, wouldn't the Vatican archives have manuscripts from that time detailing the Templars rise and fall?

There's still rumors that there are underground vaults and tunnels under the Dome of the Rock.

It's not, as people insist on, a situation where they went to the Levant and /became/ rich and powerful. They were rich and powerful before. As I pointed out to Q. and as she conveniently ignored, as a Holy Order within the church, all members of the Templars had to take oaths of chastity, obedience and /poverty/. Members surrendered all their property and riches to the order.

And, remember, this wasn't just a random trip to the Holy Land. It was a /Crusade/: everybody who was anybody was going over there, and the Templars were a very respected order, so lots of very rich sons were happy to hand over lots of money. They could be with the "cool kids" in which there were prepared, safe ways to the Holy Land.

If you want to close you eyes and your brains and remain stalwartly ignorant of the actual history and events of the era, I suppose you could further the myth of the Templars as unaccountably rich and powerful. But really, there's no reason to do so other than sheer, childish petulance.

--Jaylemurph

Edited September 7, 2009 by jaylemurph

[questionmark]

So what could they have brought back from the crusade that gave them the kind of wealth and power that they had?

Anything anybody has ever bought back from holy land was carried like a monstrance in mass ahead of the trek.

Secrets? What secrets..and how would they get there?

[+susieice]

What secrets going where? Huh?

The history of the templars clearly states it was founded by 9 in the south of France to go into the first crusade, and yes, I know it was a crusade. As for being well respected, that was only until the Pope withheld his backing. The Vatican saw a way to get rid of them. They were charged with the vilest of blasphemies and decimated totally. The church was very much involved with this action, it wasn't just an indebted king of France. No wonder they reached mythical status. They were the world's first bankers and controlled even the royal finances of France as mentioned above. If they returned with anything that was taken to Rome or there was a reason for the Vatican to appoint them as some holy order of knights, hardly a common occurence, the Vatican should have manuscripts from that time describing just why they were given this honor. Again, has anyone ever seen them?

Edited September 7, 2009 by susieice

[questionmark]

What secrets going where? Huh?

The history of the templars clearly states it was founded by 9 in the south of France to go into the first crusade, and yes, I know it was a crusade. As for being well respected, that was only until the Pope withheld his backing. The Vatican saw a way to get rid of them. They were charged with the vilest of blasphemies and decimated totally. The church was very much involved with this action, it wasn't just an indebted king of France. No wonder they reached mythical status. They were the world's first bankers and controlled even the royal finances of France as mentioned above. If they returned with anything that was taken to Rome or there was a reason for the Vatican to appoint them as some holy order of knights, hardly a common occurence, the Vatican should have manuscripts from that time describing just why they were given this honor. Again, has anyone ever seen them?

If you would have read HISTORY instead of Brown you would know that the Pope backed the Templars until Philip the "Cute", King of France, menaced him with deposition and arrest, until then he was negotiating with the Hospitalarians to reunify the order.

And no, the Templars did not do anything but what any monastery did at the time, they extended credit letters that could be redeemed at another monastery of the same order for cash (and a fee naturally).. so they were far from the "first" bankers. In fact "bankers" existed in the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations since Charlemagne (French), its first emperor, brought Jews into his empire to establish money lending facilities (as lending money for interest was against early Christian precepts and could land a Christian on a bonfire).

The only difference was that the Templars were present in the Arabian lands and could extend letters of credit to Muslim countries, who controlled both the spice route and the silk route, a hell of a business.

Additionally, if the Templars would have uncovered a blackmailing tool it would certainly not be from Salomon's temple, which...if existed at all, was destroyed over 1500 years before anybody knew what a Templar would be, besides of the fact that nobody knew where that place was, and that includes the Jews who returned from exile.

The Temple ruins you can find in Jerusalem are from the 3d one, also know as Herod's Temple, which was build on top of the ruins of the 2nd, which in turn was built on a prominent place in Jerusalem about 1000 years after Salomon (if he existed at all).

Edited September 7, 2009 by questionmark

[Guest]

If you want to close you eyes and your brains and remain stalwartly ignorant of the actual history and events of the era, I suppose you could further the myth of the Templars as unaccountably rich and powerful. But really, there's no reason to do so other than sheer, childish petulance.

--Jaylemurph

And if you want to mis-represnt the history it won't do your argument any favors either.

The Templars weren't even a recognized order when they started excavating, and the original members did nothing else but excavate until they found what they were looking for, and which they probably already knew was there. They then created their mission to protect pilgrims which allowed them to become the largest bankers in the world.

I know you have a simple history of the Templars but it fails to account for the many strange things they did and achieved.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

And if you want to mis-represnt the history it won't do your argument any favors either.

The Templars weren't even a recognized order when they started excavating, and the original members did nothing else but excavate until they found what they were looking for, and which they probably already knew was there. They then created their mission to protect pilgrims which allowed them to become the largest bankers in the world.

I know you have a simple history of the Templars but it fails to account for the many strange things they did and achieved.

Br Cornelius

You are right...there were no Templars...only Hospitalarians and they had a member called de Payens..... a noble from the Champagne.

The founding of the Templars has very little to do with the legend. Fact is that most of the Knight Orders split from the Hospitalarians.

Edited September 7, 2009 by questionmark

[jaylemurph]

And if you want to mis-represnt the history it won't do your argument any favors either.

The Templars weren't even a recognized order when they started excavating, and the original members did nothing else but excavate until they found what they were looking for, and which they probably already knew was there. They then created their mission to protect pilgrims which allowed them to become the largest bankers in the world.

I know you have a simple history of the Templars but it fails to account for the many strange things they did and achieved.

Br Cornelius

As usual, I don't think myself so smart or my predecessors so dim that I need to invent aliens or magic to explain their actions. That takes a special level of credulism already expressed by your would-be co-conspirators.

--Jaylemurph

[KRS-One]

I know I'm over 4 years too late to respond to the OP, but after the bedraggled remnants of my expedition and I have just now returned to civilization, I feel it imperative to answer:

It's sand. There's some sand under the temple.

[TheSearcher]

I know I'm over 4 years too late to respond to the OP, but after the bedraggled remnants of my expedition and I have just now returned to civilization, I feel it imperative to answer:

It's sand. There's some sand under the temple.

You didn't happen to find any lunch money ? I seem to remember that's where someone put his

[Enigmatic Annasawzi]

You didn't happen to find any lunch money ? I seem to remember that's where someone put his

Hey Hey, hey whoa, man whoa, that'd be my lunch money, need no claim, touching, taking or selling of this, will result in earth being glassed by massive fleet of Covenant followers.

EA

[Cadetak]

Forgive me for not looking through this massive thread but what was expected to be found under the temple anyways? Because relics such as the Grail or Ark and any incriminating evidence(such as something that shows Jesus wasn't God) don't really make any sense.

So I'm assuming we are talking about gold, silver, and gem type treasures? If so, i don't see the significance in somebody sacking a temple and stealing some money.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Cadetak