whats under solomons temple?

[kmt_sesh 23,404]

It was probably the actual burial ground for the " Jesus of Nazareth", Which is just to take control of most of the public which they have done with theories that they have found great powers underneath it. all these worldly events are just to take away your focus. from the battle between yourself

Welcome to UM, Ruby123.

It's an unlikely burial place of any sort because Hebrews in antiquity buried their dead outside their cities and villages, and the Temple Mount was part of the ancient City of David at that time.

[wimfloppp 27]

was solomon the son of david

[woopypooky 64]

solomon's ring?

the ring that can summon the devil to make a pact and win you a country.

[questionmark 11,357]

solomon's ring?

the ring that can summon the devil to make a pact and win you a country.

certainly not, the ring is as fictional as the character.

[kmt_sesh 23,404]

certainly not, the ring is as fictional as the character.

Besides which, if we stick to the readings of the Old Testament—which is the only place where Solomon really exists—his father, David, had already won the country.

Edited June 17, 2013 by kmt_sesh
Correcting bad grammer.

[DieChecker 18,182]

I tend to agree with Questionmark. There is no evidence that the Temple of Solomon actually existed. It supposedly was torn down by the Babylonians, I believe. Also it was very small. Meant to be a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle tent. Also the exact location of Solomon's Temple is not known. It could have been anywhere on the mount, and probably was torn down and had the stone reused.

To my knowledge there has never been any secret tunnels found under the Mount. The water tunnels and cisterns are all well documented. One such cistern actually is right next to the Rock, inside the Dome of the Rock, and is called the Well of Souls. And this may have been where stuff got buried way back when, but it has been fully excevated for centuries.

There is some evidence to show that the Foundation Stone (The "Rock" of the Dome of the Rock), actually is where the Ark of the Covenant would have sat in the Second Temple, but the Ark was lost by that time, and there was a masonry "ark" that sat there as a reminder.

[questionmark 11,357]

I tend to agree with Questionmark. There is no evidence that the Temple of Solomonactually existed. It supposedly was torn down by the Babylonians, I believe. Also it was very small. Meant to be a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle tent. Also the exact location of Solomon's Temple is not known. It could have been anywhere on the mount, and probably was torn down and had the stone reused.

To my knowledge there has never been any secret tunnels found under the Mount. The water tunnels and cisterns are all well documented. One such cistern actually is right next to the Rock, inside the Dome of the Rock, and is called the Well of Souls. And this may have been where stuff got buried way back when, but it has been fully excevated for centuries.

There is some evidence to show that the Foundation Stone(The "Rock" of the Dome of the Rock), actually is where the Ark of the Covenant would have sat in the Second Temple, but the Ark was lost by that time, and there was a masonry "ark" that sat there as a reminder.

If there was such a thing at all it certainly was not in J'lem. That was a two cow town until the Assyrians took over Samaria (~ 722 B.C.). By then, should this Salomon have existed, he certainly would not have been able to build anything. If you are looking for a temple look in Samaria. J'lem grew to a sizeable town after that point in time, with the usual friction created by the refugees and the locals. And a common legend that had to be created to reconcile those frictions.

[Sir Wearer of Hats 22,902]

I've always thought all that was under the temple was Solomon's dunny.

[Abramelin 2,502]

I tend to agree with Questionmark. There is no evidence that the Temple of Solomonactually existed. It supposedly was torn down by the Babylonians, I believe. Also it was very small. Meant to be a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle tent. Also the exact location of Solomon's Temple is not known. It could have been anywhere on the mount, and probably was torn down and had the stone reused.

To my knowledge there has never been any secret tunnels found under the Mount. The water tunnels and cisterns are all well documented. One such cistern actually is right next to the Rock, inside the Dome of the Rock, and is called the Well of Souls. And this may have been where stuff got buried way back when, but it has been fully excevated for centuries.

There is some evidence to show that the Foundation Stone(The "Rock" of the Dome of the Rock), actually is where the Ark of the Covenant would have sat in the Second Temple, but the Ark was lost by that time, and there was a masonry "ark" that sat there as a reminder.

Indeed there's no real evidence the Temple of Solomon ever existed, but the Bible goes into great detail describing the construction of a building that 'never existed':

http://www.lgic.org/...ians_temple.php

What's interesting you mention this Well: when the Phoenicians built a temple, they always built it over a (sacred) well, and in the front of the temple they erected two pillars, the ones called Jachin and Boaz in the Bible.

These pillars were called "Pillars of Melqart" by the Phoenicians, but most certainly they were not called that way by the Hebrews. The Greeks always equated Melqart with Hercules, and so those pillars were later called "Pillars of Hercules", a name later adopted for the Strait of Gibraltar.

The Phoenician colony in Iberia, Gader (Gaderia/Cadiz) also had such a temple built by the Phoenicians, and it was also built over a well, and also with two pillars in front of it. The alternative name the Phoenicians used for Gader was "Qadesh", which meant "Holy" or "Holy Place", the same alternative Arab name for Jerusalem, "Al Quds".

The Romans used this alternative name, Qadesh, which in their language became Gades, and much later Cadiz.

.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Abramelin

[DieChecker 18,182]

If there was such a thing at all it certainly was not in J'lem. That was a two cow town until the Assyrians took over Samaria (~ 722 B.C.). By then, should this Salomon have existed, he certainly would not have been able to build anything. If you are looking for a temple look in Samaria. J'lem grew to a sizeable town after that point in time, with the usual friction created by the refugees and the locals. And a common legend that had to be created to reconcile those frictions.

I've always been taught that the Samarians were massacred down to a few by the Persians and that new peoples were brought in to settle. These new peoples interacted with the existing Hebrews, who were assimilated, and they began practicing Samarian Judaism. And they don't use a temple, they conduct sacrifices up on a mountain, under the sky. When the Hebrews supposedly returned, they shunned the Samarians as some kind of heretics. To this day they are still treated badly by the government in Jeruselem.

Edited June 19, 2013 by DieChecker

[kmt_sesh 23,404]

I've always been taught that the Samarians were massacred down to a few by the Persians and that new peoples were brought in to settle. These new peoples interacted with the existing Hebrews, who were assimilated, and they began practicing Samarian Judaism. And they don't use a temple, they conduct sacrifices up on a mountain, under the sky. When the Hebrews supposedly returned, they shunned the Samarians as some kind of heretics. To this day they are still treated badly by the government in Jeruselem.

The Northern Kingdom (Samaria) no longer existed by the time of the Persians. It was destroyed by Assyria in 722 BCE and the depopulation was completed by Sargon II. I've often wondered where exactly in the Middle East the descendants of those ancient Israelites now live. I believe the site of resettlement is mentioned on one of Sargon II's monuments but I can't remember which one—or what the equivalent of that site would be today.

Judah was all that was left of what used to be the Hebrew kingdom by the time the Persians came to power, and the Jews thought very highly of Cyrus the Great for freeing them from bondage in Babylon (although in truth, by that point, many Jews were probably accustomed to life in that city and remained there).

Samaria is actually the name of the capital of the Northern Kingdom. A large temple was built there and maintained by the Omride dynasty prior to the advance of the Assyrians. I've read some interesting journal articles about archaeological excavations there. The Samarian temple was probably larger and better established than anyone in modern times realized. At the same time, the "mountain" you mentioned remained a common means for private veneration throughout the Hebrew territories. Called "high places" in the Old Testament, they were a holdover from Canaanite religious practices. The ruling authority of Jerusalem tried ardently to wipe them out in their attempt to make the Temple the one and only place of veneration for Yahweh, but probably were not successful until full monotheism set in during the post-exilic period.

[Abramelin 2,502]

Omri (Hebrew עָמְרִי, short for עָמְרִיָּה—"The Lord is my life") was king of Israel c. 885–874 B.C.E. and the founder of the capital city of Samaria. He was the father of Israel's famous king Ahab and the grandfather of two other kings of Israel. In addition, Omri's granddaughter Athaliah reigned as queen of Judah for several years.

Omri took power during a period of political instability in the northern kingdom. His rule over Israel was secure enough that he could bequeath his kingdom to his son Ahab, thus beginning a new dynasty. Archaeologists consider the Omride dynasty to have been a major regional power, and some of the monumental building projects attributed to Solomon by the biblical writers have recently been dated to the period of Omri's rule. Omri is the first king of Israel or Judah to be mentioned in any historical record outside of the Bible.

The writers of the Books of Kings barely mention Omri's political and economic accomplishments, considering him an evil king who repeated the sin of the northern king Jeroboam I by refusing to acknowledge the Temple of Jerusalem as the only legitimate Israelite religious shrine. Both contemporary archeology and the modern state of Israel, however, evaluate him more positively. Some Israeli archaeologists (see Finkelstein 2001) believe that Omri and his descendants, rather than David or Solomon, "established the first fully developed monarchy in Israel."

(...)

While both the Bible and rabbinical tradition take a negative view toward Omri, the modern State of Israel, not to mention several prominent Israeli archaeologists, has recently re-evaluated his contribution to Israel's history. Academics now view him as the founder of the Hebrews' first true kingdom, viewing the governments of David and Solomon more as mere tribal federations whose accomplishments were glorified by later biblical writers.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Omri

[rakovsky 38]

This is a good topic question.

The first question is what was the Temple Mount originally built as. The blocks at the base level are really puzzling,. They are huge megaliths that were put together in a way that reminds me of other ancient civilizations that used megaliths, like Puma Puncu. We are talking no cement, no gaps between stones. Megaliths 100 tons heavy in weight. The biggest was 570 tons, the biggest stone lifted without mechanics in history. It could be from before Solomon's time even.

The second issue is what happened to the Ark of the Covenant. I read interesting articles that suggest to me it really was hidden under the Temple, based on designs of the Temple described in the Bible, as well as the fct the Ark was not one of the things listed as stolen by the Babylonians. It makes sense that the ancient Israelites made a place to hide the ark for protection. But what happened to the Ark after it was hidden in about 600 BC? Probably the ancient Jews, Romans and Muslims did not find it, because they were not nearly as focused on finding it as the Templars were, and they did not leave a record of finding it. But the Templars had centuries to dig under the Mount and it looks like that was one of their goals. If the Templars didn't find it, my guess is that the Ark is still down there, because otherwise we would have heard of it. The Templars though were pretty secretive.

The third question is what the Templars did find in their digging. I don't think it was Solomon's magic ring. First I doubt Solomon did have a magic pentagram ring to contorl demons, because the Bible doesn't mention it. Second, the Byzantines supposedly had it, and kept it at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and not at the Temple. Of course, the Crusaders could have gotten it from the Byzantines just like they probably got the Shroud of Turin from the Byzantines. Anyway that Byzantine ring would not have been under the Temple.

Another thing the Templars probably didn't find was some kind of secret document about Christianity, like Dan Brown talked about in his fiction novel. The reason is that Christians did not care about the Temple Mount so much as they cared about Golgotha and other Christian places. Plus, they did not have control over the Temple Mount in early Christian times. So there would be no reason for the early Christians to put secret Christian documents under the Mount or way to do it.

So the Templars might have found a treasure from Solomon like the Ark, and there could be more treasure like the Ark still there.

I think the Temple Mount is really neat, and would love to know the truth about its design, construction, and insides. The best way to find out the truth would be to have lots of independent research. The big obstacle is that the two groups in control of the Mount - the Israelis / rabbinical community, and the Muslims both have their own strong ideas about it. If they go and dig up the Mount, then you have the same problem that you do with the Templars- you can imagine that if either of those two groups actually found a powerful artefact they might not tell anyone because they would prefer to keep it, kind of like the Lord of the Rings. Plus, the Mount has so much religious importance that this could also bias their investigation and what they choose to do with their archeological results. That's why I say lots of independent research is going to be the best. i think the treasure of the Mount shrould belong to everybody, as it is a world historical landmark. Put it in a museum and let people learn about it.

Edited August 26, 2013 by rakovsky

[Reecesp1eces 0]

Al Aqsa is Solomons temple, the Templar's changed the name when they took it over, then they changed their name to poor knights of Christ and Templar knights etc.

[Windowpane 368]

Recent article on the appearance of the Temple.

[jaylemurph 4,871]

3 hours ago, Reecesp1eces said:

Al Aqsa is Solomons temple, the Templar's changed the name when they took it over, then they changed their name to poor knights of Christ and Templar knights etc.

The Templars only changed their names in conspiracy theories favored by the gullible and simple.

--Jaylemurph