Hey everybody, thanks for joining us for a special episode of the Baptist Bias,
and I'm excited to talk about the Temple Mount location, which is something that I didn't know
a lot about in the past, but after having researched it a little bit, I became very interested in this
topic, and I'm joined with my co-host, Ben the Baptist. Hey Ben, how's it going?
It's going great. Appreciate the chance to be here excited about the topic tonight and our special
I just love lovers of truth.
You know, it's that simple.
It's one of the reasons why I love our church so much
and why I came here to our church
and why I'm here on this podcast.
But my point is, is that no matter how quote unquote
secondary you think an issue is, at the end of the day
it matters what the truth is.
It matters who is right and what is right.
And I think tonight we're gonna get to the bottom
of an issue that some people are really talking about
Which is the location of the temple. So looking forward to it and ready to get this thing on the road
Yeah, and of course our show, we do some shows that are kind of lighthearted, just entertainment.
Some are pretty serious.
This one's pretty serious, and it's an opportunity for us to learn a little bit, educate ourselves.
And I know that our audience may not be very educated on this topic or may not have much
knowledge about this issue, but I'm really hoping that with this show, we're going to
be able to kind of bring some new information and really help our audience understand some
of these geographical locations in the Bible better.
Um, that's, that's personally why I like this, just because when I'm reading my Bible and
it brings up all these names of places and locations, it didn't really mean much to me.
And the topography and the geography was kind of a mystery to me.
But being able to look at maps and look at Google images and videos actually kind of
helps give us an idea of kind of what to envision, what to imagine.
I made a video a few weeks ago about the whaling wall and it was just kind of an introductory
to this topic.
I think you watched it Ben, right?
What did you think about that video?
Well, I think there's a lot of confusion about that because many people would say
that the Temple Mount location can't actually be the Temple Mount location because the whaling
wall exists and their logic is that it was somehow a part of the Temple. I think you did a good job
of clearing up the confusion on that and demonstrating that it really wasn't, that it's a separate
Overall, when it comes to this issue, Pastor Shelley,
your video that you made and the documentary from our guest,
it really brings the scripture to life
and helps you envision some of these geographical areas
and that's why I'm intrigued by the topic.
So there you go.
Yeah, and thanks to our audience.
We're gonna be taking questions from our chat.
We also take Collins, 231 Baptist.
If you wanna call into the show and ask a question,
we'll be answering questions on the show live.
But I want to talk about our guest here and I'm not necessarily a subject matter expert
on this, but I do believe our guest, Dr. Todd Fink, is someone that has researched this
very well.
He's made a documentary.
talking about the true temple location.
I found that his documentary was very engaging.
He really doesn't waste your time.
He just shows you fact after fact after fact.
And I found that his video was very compelling.
He makes great arguments for the support
of the traditional temple mount location.
And so we're very excited to have him on the show.
Dr. Todd Fink, how's it going tonight?
Doing well. Thank you and thanks for having me on. It's a real, real honor to be with you guys.
And I don't think that our audience necessarily knows much about you, but if you would, could you just give us a little bit of some background?
I know that you've done some missions work in Mexico. You've gone to Israel a lot.
Just give us a little bit of a sample of who you are and some of your background.
Right. Yeah, briefly I served as a pastor in the
Oregon area, Roseburg, Oregon area for about 11 and a half years, and we came down to Mexico
We're about five hours south of San Diego on the Baja Peninsula
Been down here for about 26 years serving as a long-term missionary and about 15 years ago
We began to go to Israel and God just gave us a real strong passion to help other people see
the context in which the Bible took place. We have a saying that if you want to discredit the Bible,
you have to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Because when God wrote scripture,
he wrote it to real people in real time, in a real place. And those places exist. So...
We lead teams over there. We've written some books about Israel. We've had a YouTube channel and I have family members
There's about four of us on the team that are producing content and then of course we lead teams over there
so part of the backdrop of these this documentary we did about the Temple Mount was
we lead teams over there and
We want to know the truth. We want to know what reality is. We don't want to be telling our people one thing
But anyway, so we did a lot of research on the Temple Mount location and so we're excited
to share that with you this evening.
And you can go and check out Dr. Fink's website.
I don't know if we can pull this up while I'm speaking,
but holylandsite.com.
So yeah, you can go here
and he's got a lot of different pieces of information here.
They take people on journeys to Israel
as far as just sightseeing
and they can see all kinds of different biblical locations.
They also have, like you said, on his YouTube channel,
a lot of videos about this.
And one of the videos in particular,
we kinda wanna highlight on a show tonight
where you talked about the true location of the temple.
And I wanna play clip one if we can get that set up.
And I wanna kinda just give us a little sample.
We may not play the entire clip,
but let's just go ahead and play a little bit of this
and get an idea about this video.
More evidence can be found from what is called the Sifting Project.
In 1999, the Muslims conducted illegal renovations on the Temple Mount
and disposed of over 9,000 tons of dirt
mixed with invaluable architectural artifacts into the Kidron Valley.
What appeared to be wrong turned out to be miraculous.
All this material from the Temple Mount is being sifted and unbelievable discoveries
are being made that confirms the Temple Mount is the true location of the original temples.
Among these discoveries are thousands of tile fragments that form the ancient tile floor
of much of the temple mount dating back to the first and second temple periods.
These tiles were also written about. You can keep this video playing. We're going to cut the audio.
I want to get your thoughts here. This is pretty interesting. So y'all found all kinds of different
fragments and even potentially the temple floor location at the temple mount. Can you talk to us
Yeah incredible discoveries I mean there's just so much evidence it's just so overwhelming but
yeah so the Muslims you know they did this dig to enlarge and to make a mosque entrance
down under the Temple Mount anyway so they dumped this stuff in the Kidron Valley and then of course
the Israelis they captured this stuff took it up to where the sifting project is
and so they're going through this and they're wet sifting and it's kind of a new technology and so
they're finding all of these things so this stuff is right under the temple mount so it's stuff right
in the location of the temple mount that proves it shows all of this evidence for this being the
temple and the temple location.
That's really interesting. I don't know that our audience can always picture these things
I'm gonna see if I can pull that up in just a minute
Just so people have an idea of what we're talking about and I want to plug the title of this YouTube video this
Documentary for those who are listening. They're not in the chat room
I put a link to it in the chat room on rumble
But if you're watching afterward on the archive and don't have access to that must see evidence proving the temple location
was on the temple mount. Yeah, pause that. Pause that real quick on the video if you can.
If you search for that, it'll come up on YouTube. So we're looking at here is the dome of the rock
is kind of in the center there with that yellow globe and then the temple mount is surrounding
this entire area and to the east is the Kidron Valley that you brought up. You're saying in this
Kidron Valley just east of this temple mount location is where they're finding
all the actually yeah yeah pardon me it was in the kidron valley east but south so it was farther
down the valley so it'd be going farther south is where they they dumped it and then of course
israelis they recaptured it took it up to a scopus mountain which is to the north east of
the temple mount so if you look at the dome of the rocket scopus mountain would be to the right
angled up to the right. So it's a large project. Volunteers can go there to this day and they can
help. But yeah, they're just finding just amazing stuff. So where was the stuff found at? So you're
saying they went and collected it from the Kid John Valley, but where was it actually originally
coming from? Because you said they're dumping it out there. Okay.
So in the in just a little bit before so I wish we had a pointer somewhere to show you
But if you look at the Temple Mount you can see the gray building that's got my screen
So here's the temple. Yeah, so yeah, so if you bring your dot down and to the right
Hey, they they have
So so they want to make you can't see my mouse. Can you okay? I'll put a dot right there
Anyway, it is south of the Dome of the Rock is where the actual dig was, so it's kind
of in the south.
Yeah, okay, so there you go. So it's in the bottom of the screen on the bottom right of the screen if you kind of go over to there right in right there
You got it right there is where it was at. So they dug all of this material out
So the Muslims they've had control of the Temple Mount now for quite some time Israel has let them do that for peace sake
Okay, anyway, so they did this dig to make an access down into underneath to a mosque that they made
Okay, and so they hold these 900 tons of dirt out and then they dumped it in the southern part of the Kidron Valley
that would be south of the Temple Mount. They just left it there.
And then the Israelis, they saw the value of this and they hauled it up to Mount Scopus.
to this huge place or it's under a large tent
where they work on this to sift and they have just found thousands and thousands
of artifacts
that show that the
Temple Mount location is the actual location of the Temple Mount.
And of course that, as we go through this talk
I guess what you're going to see is that the evidence is just so, so overwhelming,
not only from archaeology, but also from Scripture.
And I'm excited to share with you some verses that, if we just set all of the archaeology aside,
We know that the temple was not in the city of David just by scripture alone second chronicles five
So obviously scripture is our authority. It's our guide and so
It tells us very clearly that I don't if you want me to talk about this now or not
I want to just bring it up. Just bring it up and I'll try to go to that verse for you
Okay. Yes, if you can go to second second chronicles
16 or pardon me second chronicles five
Two second Chronicles 5 2 and I'll I'll be excited to read it to you if you like so go ahead
The the the the context
before 2 Chronicles 5-2 is that Solomon is building this temple. David had it in his heart to build the temple.
But God said that you're a man of blood and you can't but your son will. So Solomon then, he built this temple.
And of course, David did a lot of the preparatory work.
So anyway, at the dedication of this temple, you can see it on your screen here. Let's just read this.
5.2. Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes,
the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel unto Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of
the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion.
You pause right there. You pause right there. Okay. So this is the dedication of the temple. So
Solomon has built the temple. Now we're going to dedicate it. So what are we going to do? We're
going to move David had the Ark down in the city of David under a tent, we believe. And so it says
here that he gathered all the fathers, all the children unto Jerusalem. And then notice these
Up where is the temple Mount? It's up above the city of David to bring up the Ark of the Covenant of
the Lord
What?
out of where
Out of the city of David
Which is Zion. Amen
Wow, if I know you have a question, what is the greatest evidence?
Well, we have a lot of archaeology, but scripture is very clear now, say this very kindly and
very respectfully, I've heard the response to this by some of those who believe it's
down in the city of David and their interpretation as well.
David took the, or Solomon took the Ark. It was kind of like a parade. He took it up,
paraded it around up above, and then brought it back down to the city of David. Well,
2 Chronicles 6-10, just the next chapter, if you want to go there to 2 Chronicles 6-10.
So the question is, does the Ark, does it stay in the new temple?
Or does it go back to this
Place down in the city of David
Well, scripture is very clear that it says
the Lord therefore
Hath performed his word that he hath spoken where I am risen up in the room of David my father and
Am set on the throne of Israel as the Lord promised and have built the house for the name of the Lord God of
Israel and
In it have put what?
The Ark where is
Yeah, wherein is the covenant of the Lord that he made with the children of Israel.
And then as you go on in the context of the passage, then the temple is dedicated, God
fills the temple with his glory, that's a kind of glory, which interestingly is what
he done with the Tabernacle at Mount Sinai.
So, he repeats this miracle, and the priests have to stop because God's glory is so great.
So therein, it says clearly that the ark is placed, has taken up out of the city of David,
is placed in this temple, and then that's where it resides.
So yeah, I mean, I think that's a great point and just just one thing I'd like to add is
You know, I think that they've argued they say oh they took the temp the temp the ark out and then brought it back
Into the temple that was in the city and you know, if you've read the Bible you'd realize
They're not gonna joy ride with the Ark of the Covenant, you know
I just ask Uza how that went the last time they just kind of just took the Ark for a joy ride
So, you know, it's kind of absurd
to think that they took the Ark out of the city of David and didn't take it and put it into the
temple, like what was just brought up here in chapter six, you know, that they would dance around
with that outside of the city just for fun, just to bring it back into the city really is kind of
illogical. It's not what the text says whatsoever. The text is making a really clear argument here
that the Ark of God would have been taken out of the city into the newly established and created
that they had made. And of course, we have evidence here that of course they put the
Ark of God in the Temple where, you know, in chapter three earlier, it also brings up
that the temple was to be built on Mount Moriah. And so, you know, you also have Oron on the Jebusite
was a threshing floor, which was the location. And so we would see that would also be outside
of the city. So like all of these evidence is put together in the Bible.
I really don't see how you could make an argument biblically that it was in the city of David
or in the valley or on top of a spring or something like that. It makes, you know,
the Gihan spring is what I've heard many people argue. I think it's pretty clear from the Bible
that this is not a valid argument to say that it was in the city of David. So I just wanted to add
to what you were saying because I totally agree with everything that you're saying. I was trying
Uh, I couldn't remember if I had a picture that's kind of zoomed out to show. Yeah. So down here,
I think that this picture kind of illustrates a little bit down, down here is kind of, uh, below
the Othel.
or this Jerusalem city of David.
This is kind of where the city of David is historically.
And then of course traveling way up, like you said,
up here to the Temple Mount location,
that's Mount Moriah.
That's where we're suggesting the text is clearly leading.
Hey, we were taking the Ark of God
out of this city of David up onto this Temple Mount location.
Does that kind of make sense, Ben?
Yeah, I mean, everything is tracking.
To me, the biblical argument is honestly what convinced me first. I think the archaeology certainly supports what the text is saying, obviously, but
what convinced me at first was simply what the Bible tells us.
Second Chronicles chapter 3 specifically that describes the temple being built on Mount Moriah. I think we saw
even great evidence right here in 2 Chronicles 5 as well and chapter 6.
So the text is telling us that the Ark of the Covenant was taken out of the city of David.
It was placed in the temple that we know was built on Mount Moriah.
1 plus 1 is 2. I think we can follow the evidence scripturally
and it's leading us to the temple being on the Temple Mount.
And, of course, if you want to call in and ask us a question, 231 Baptist will be taking
questions.
You can always put them in the chat as well.
And so we are interested in this topic, and I'm also interested in the other evidence,
because I know the Bible, of course, is the only thing that truly matters, but at the
same time, we believe the Bible is true, literally.
whatever the Bible says actually happened, and of course it's going to match with our reality,
our science, our history, just everything that we see is going to match. Just like finding,
you're not going to find artifacts of David's temple, or I'm sorry Solomon's temple,
you know, on this Temple Mount location, if that wasn't where the temple was, you're not,
they're not just going to dig up a bunch of artifacts and bury them,
And what some people are calling the Fortress Antonia to just try and just just trying to like deceive us or something like that.
That's an absurd idea.
Unless there's a grand conspiracy to place.
these artifacts on the temple mount to fool us all.
Yeah, of course.
If you believe in the most wild conspiracy theories,
I guess you could suggest that,
but that's a pretty strong evidence in and of itself
that you have artifacts tracing back to
well before even the second temple that are being found
and all kinds of Jewish related materials,
not just Roman material,
but their particular money, clothing, artifacts, flooring.
all kinds of different things that material that's consistent with temple religious activity.
Yeah, with temple, with Jewish heritage and essence. So I think those things are really
interesting. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Yeah, which dates clear back to the first temple period,
dating clear back to the time of Solomon, Hezekiah. So we're going back in time,
a long, long time. So to have these artifacts there, dating clear back to these early periods,
You know, Jesus is referred to in the Bible as the chief cornerstone, and in any building project,
a cornerstone is very important, and we have another clip that I want to share
from your documentary, and I thought this was really interesting. It's clip five,
and it's talking about specifically you identifying a cornerstone of the original
Temple Mount location, and I find this a really compelling evidence, especially when we talk about
the dimensions here in a minute, but let's play a little bit of this clip, and I want to get your
At the north end of these stones that make up the first step of the stairway, a corner is formed.
A corner can be seen which goes eastward toward the eastern wall.
Well, I wanted to point out some stuff to you. This is absolutely amazing. This right here is the corner of
the original platform during Solomon's time, Hezekiah's time, that original platform.
So right here is the line and it runs now for the edge of the Muslim Temple Mount.
So they built another platform up here, the Muslims.
and around the latter 600 AD 700 AD in that time so anyway they follow the same line here
but this line here will show you is an entirely different angle so the angle of these stones
and the platform of the muslims is different okay so we can identify this as the quarter of
the original platform of solvon then from here let's go ahead and just mute the audio you can
And for our audience's sake, I kind of want to see if you can go to my screen actually
for just a second.
We'll come back to that video just looping, but if you look at where the dome of the rock
is and you kind of just zoom in a little bit, this location that you were standing at, please
help me if I'm getting this accurate, it's kind of like right here in the center.
Yep, yep, you're right.
So can you kind of talk to us a little bit about what that that cornerstone is that you're driving? Yeah
To me, this is really really powerful evidence and I want to give respect to who really deserves it
when I began to research this whole
temple location I
Came across a book called the quest written by Lane Rittmeyer
Lane Rittmeyer is probably the leading authority on the Temple Mount. He's
written a large huge thick book I have right here behind me. Anyway, he was the
one who identified them, these these corners. Now this is absolutely
fascinating, okay, so if you just allow me just a moment here. So in the Mishnah
It tells us the size of the original Temple Mount platform that Solomon built.
It measured 500 square cubits.
That is in feet.
It's 861 feet and meters is 262.4.
What is absolutely fascinating is that from that corner,
And those stones are Solomonic stones. They date back to the time of Solomon Hezekiah, okay?
And so from that corner to the eastern wall, guess what it measures?
Exactly 500 cubits.
861 feet, 262 meters.
And then from that corner to the curious bend in the wall,
That the Hasmoneans added on to the Hasmoneans added on to the Temple Mount in around 140
BC and
So they followed a line just a little bit different. So from
the corner
down to the
Bend in the wall where the Hasmoneans added on to guess what it measures
exactly
500 cubits, 861 feet, 264 meters.
So all around this, on the southern part, it measures just a little bit less.
It's 495 cubits, 853 feet.
They believe that's because of the Ophel, and they had a hard time maybe seeing, but
Other corner going up to the original spot. We started at is 500 cubic feet
So we have these measurements where you can see exactly and these measurements are based upon
hard archaeological evidence
One the Hasmonean expansion. So if you see the yellow in your screen there
That is the exact location of the original Temple Mount that Solomon built, and it measures exactly 500 cubits.
And we can see the evidence, like I say, from the corner where the Solomonic stones are, in the northwest corner to the north corner.
east corner exactly 500 cubits from the north east corner to the south east
corner 500 cubits and that is exactly as where the Hasmonean expansion started
and then then we can follow it but it's amazing is this all coincidence could it
just all be coincidence that these markers measure exactly 500 cubits
And again, just for people to understand, the Mishnah is part of Jewish, the Jewish
writings that they, their sacred writings, which of course Christians don't necessarily
agree with, but at the same time, if they're just recording just statements of fact as
far as like how big certain objects were and measurements, you know, we would anticipate
them to be act, you know, somewhat accurate on those particular things.
what we see from the archaeological evidence of a stone structure. And I find really, really
interesting, especially when you show the bend in the wall on the east gate from the Hasmonean
period, you know, that
that's irrefutable. Additionally, you kind of show a setback on the other side initially.
So like, I'm spoiling your documentary, but it's so great because in this picture in the far
left corner of the of the Golden Square, you basically that's where you showed us that corner
directly east to the east gate. There's an offset right there at that particular corner.
Then you go down 500 qubits. There's a bend in the Hasmonean section of the wall,
of that retaining wall that was added. Then you go to the other corner. So we're kind of
building our box and we're getting the very end. Well, the western portion matches exactly again,
it's just like you said one percent off but it's virtually the same.
And of course you can see this Ophel a little bit in this picture. I know it's a little bit
small but the Ophel is just kind of this this hump that we see where the the mountain is at.
And so in just architecture in general obviously when you close all of these walls in it's possible
they were off a little bit and of course you're just going to fill in the gap.
It's not something that's even detectable by the human eye or anything like that.
It would have taken a long time to measure these things and to build them.
And this retaining wall is necessary
because they're building this on a mountain.
And of course the mountain's not level.
It needs a level surface
if you're gonna build this giant temple.
So they're basically building a box
and they're gonna then fill it in with dirt
so that they can have a level plane
to then build the temple structure on top of it.
Is that an accurate way to describe this?
Yeah, absolutely. And not only is there this bend in the wall, but also the stones change.
We can date stones by what's called the boss. That's kind of the outline around them. And
so the boss, the stone styles change at that bend in the wall as well. And then when you
It has different stones as well. Yeah, it's got a clip 13 while he's talking about that. Yeah
Yeah, okay, right
Perfect. Yeah, that's right. That's where I wanted to go next. Okay, so
one of the things that really is is I think refutes the argument that the Romans built this
What they call this Temple Mount they call it the the Antonio fortress
There are stones there dating back to the time of Solomon Hezekiah.
We can see the Hasmonean stones from about 140 BC.
We can see Solomonic stones at that corner up there from around 970 or so BC.
This structure, this Temple Mount existed
long, long before the Romans arrived.
And in fact, the Romans didn't arrive with
allegiance until 70 A.D.
You can look, you can Google that, you can look at it in
in in psychopedias. They didn't arrive. Allegiance wasn't
in Jerusalem.
during the time of Christ, before when Herod captured Judea and then became the client king from Rome,
he did that with Roman help, but not a legion.
So there was never a legion in Jerusalem until 70 A.D. under Titus when he came to squelch the rebellion, the uprising that the Jews were causing.
So again, we have these stones and you can see the boss, if you look at the edges, we're going to go there now in the video as it's rolling.
So the boss is basically that corner and we can date stone, the time of stones.
by the boss. The Herodian stones, those being stones that Herod built, were very clean. The face
of them were very clean. As you go back in time, the Hasmonean stones are more rougher than going
back in time. Josiah, Hezekiah, Solomon, they're really rough stones. So at the base of the Eastern
The Romans weren't there in 970 BC, once again.
These yeah, I think that's great. I think that's great archaeological evidence because no matter no matter what you have to recognize
There's distinction you can see the clear bends and the wall you can see a variation in the like you said the boss of
These particular stones you see the size the shape the cut all kinds of different things
You can see the expansions like it would be in my mind absurd to assume that all of this was created in 19
and then destroyed in 70 AD and it shows all these various archaeological variances within this
particular structure. You know, if this was just the Fortress Antonia, I would assume that it's
just one construction phase, one construction period, similar stones all over. So when we see
this clear archaeological evidence of multiple phases, you know, in essentially suggesting
separation of centuries as far as when they were constructed, the type of stones that were used,
then it makes it really clear that this cannot be something that just happened in one time period.
I want to comment on something you brought up, though. There is an inscription.
underneath the Western Wall tunnels of F-R-E-T.
This is a picture and someone has suggested,
oh, this is proof that this was a Roman legion fortress here
because this inscription exists here.
Can you address that particular inscription there?
Yeah, so that legion once again
didn't arrive in Jerusalem until 70 AD.
So when they did arrive and they took back because Rome did have control, right under Herod
And then in 66 AD the Jews revolted and so then that's when they came in with this Roman legion
And so when they did take Jerusalem back, then this is when this would have been written again
They were not even there until 70 AD and they didn't even exist
A long time even before this so the Legion didn't even exist and then once again it didn't even arrive
So it cannot be from the time of Jesus cannot cannot be from this time
Period it it's from a later time period that they were just basically carving that we have were victors
We've taken this over but once again 70 AD so it'd be almost like a graffiti
or just simply just some kind of a mark to say,
hey, we've conquered this area
and they're placing their mark there.
Kind of like when astronauts put their mark on the moon,
we put a flag up and everything.
That doesn't mean that the American flag's
always been on the moon,
but it means that they were there, they visited,
they kind of placed their mark.
Does that make sense to you, Ben?
Yeah, and I think for the audience,
just to understand the reason why we're making a big deal about this not being a Roman fortress is
because those who would surmise that the temple actually was located in the city of David believed
that the traditional temple mount location is actually a Roman fortress and that it really
has nothing to do with the temple whatsoever but we see that the stones
date back before the arrival of the Romans. We see that the appearance of the stones,
some of them look solemnic in nature, meaning that they were placed there by
Solomon. And then additionally, the inscription there does not prove that it was a Roman fortress,
but rather the Romans, you could argue, desecrated it and wrote stuff. And I like the analogy there
with the US flag being planted on the moon. That doesn't mean that the moon was created with a flag.
being there originally. But just a little recap, I thought that would help the audience a little
here as we go through a dense...
Subject. Yeah, and of course to talk about that. I want to talk about this Roman fort theory a little bit more
And I think it's important to kind of identify these locations for a couple reasons
You know for Christians we're supposed to watch for the end times and we should be aware of these things
additionally we want to
Make sure that we're understanding what the Bible saying that we have the right picture in mind
We also want to make sure that we're not discrediting the Bible
by coming up with something that's contradictory or just denies reality because the theory that
the temple was on the temple mount.
pretty much widely accepted by all I mean even you'd have to argue even the
Muslims and a lot of these people agree with this being a sacred place why
would they build the Dome of the Rock on something insignificant like a Roman
fortress why would Hadrian have built his temple of Jupiter on something
meaningless and so for really for the last 1500 years almost
This has been viewed as the sacred place, the holy place, so you'd have to just assume that just
virtually everybody's been wrong, they don't understand what's going on, and to deny so much history
and facts and reality and then claim that that's what the Bible says. I think that makes the Bible
look bad. I think it makes Christians look bad in general. You know, we should accept whatever's
true. And so there's this theory going out there that the Temple Mount was not where the Temple was.
It's not a mount. It's just a Roman fortress. Now there's some clips that you have from your video
that we want to play here. Clip number two is talking about this Roman fort theory. I want to
Now would be a good time to deal with the claims by some that the current Temple Mount was a Roman fort.
The main argument they use is that the traditional site of the Antonia Fortress was too small to house a legion of soldiers.
However, their claim is not based on historical facts.
During the time of Christ and leading up to the Jewish Revolt in 66 AD,
there was never a Roman legion in Jerusalem.
In 66 AD, the Jews revolted against the Romans
and took over the Antony of Fortress,
which was on the northwest corner of the Temple Mount.
As a result, Roman legions were sent to stomp out this rebellion.
The Romans would wind up conquering Jerusalem in 70 A.D. under the Roman general Titus.
The historian Josephus writes that in this destruction, the Romans destroyed the Antonia Fortress in several days.
a simple Google search will reveal these facts.
Therefore, there was never a Roman legion
in Jerusalem during the time of Christ leading up to 66 AD.
All right, let's go ahead and play let's let's skip to the clip 18 here
So so the point that's being made is essentially there's just no evidence historically for Roman legion just squatting in
Jerusalem you'd kind of have to ask this question like why do you have just so many soldiers there?
For what purpose it doesn't make sense until they need to be there to squash out a Jewish rebellion
Which is being brought up, but let's play another clip here clip 18 which talks about kind of the dimensions to
of this particular structure and comparing and contrasting to what a Roman fort would
look like.
Now let's look at another piece of convincing evidence that supports the current Temple Mount
as the true location of the original temples and not as a Roman fort as some claim.
Roman forts had four gates.
The Temple Mount has at least eight and maybe nine.
the temple mount is shaped like a trapezoid. Roman forts had rounded corners, the temple
mount has square corners, plus the temple mount had no rampart, ditch, or moat like Roman forts.
Plus, the gates of the temple mount are very irregular. For example, on the south side there
are two gates. On the west side, four gates. On the north side, one gate, plus the access from the
on the east side at least one gate and some believe possibly two.
So in total, the Temple Mount had at least eight gates and maybe nine.
Roman forts only had four gates, one on each side.
No, I think that this is a really compelling
Thing to think about because number one first of all is a it's a mount. We're talking about a temple mount
Versus a fortress. I mean when you think about a fortress, you're building up walls
You're not you're not just building a platform
You're not building up just a retaining wall retaining wall versus a fortress wall are two completely different things if you really think about the
purpose of why you're building them but additionally
you know, when we think about the entrances, you know, if you have a fort, you don't want
just unlimited entrances for enemy attackers or invaders to be able to file in because that's
a weak part in the wall. A door or a gate is a weak part in a military combat situation.
So you want to limit the amount of access into the fort. And of course, because of the size,
on each location. If you have four gates on one side, that's going to be very difficult to defend.
Enemy attackers and invaders can come and just siege that location. You bring up the moat.
Again, a moat is essentially just a water feature that goes around the structure to make it that
uh you know anything that basically get over the wall or to shoot or to catapult
something over the wall so they're creating this water feature to basically limit access
geographically to that which again the temple mount does not have these kind of features
on the west side on the south side or the north side in fact it almost seems like
not difficult, whereas a four you'd be trying to make it difficult. These rounded quarters are also a strategic
a strategic construction or architecture for
military purposes. The corner is going to be much easier to dismantle, destroy, attack, harm.
and so when it has this rounded feature it actually makes it a little bit more difficult to get
somewhere to get a grip on essentially to rip at the wall or to destroy it so I mean the points
that you're making are just so clear like from a from a military perspective like you would not
you put something on a mount because you want to showcase it off. You're there to display something
whereas a fort, you're there to protect yourself and to basically be in a military advantage.
I hope I'm representing your viewpoints and arguments here well, but give us some thoughts
on this comparison, a fort versus a temple mount.
Yeah, yeah, I think I think you're hitting it to right on the head and I don't have a lot really to add because
It's it's right there in front of us. So why would they have all these?
gates and accesses another observation is
We know and you can go there and look at it today
Under the dome of the rock is the rock
Which is where the temple once stood? Okay, so let's just play let's just say that
It was a Roman fort. Why would they have this rock
protruding up in the floor of their fortress?
What purpose? They wouldn't have that. They would have
leveled that. They would have made that level. So just another piece of
evidence and also again those old ancient stones from Solomon
up there. Why are they leaving them?
Yeah, it becomes very clear that this
Just really plummets and of course some of the proponents of it are going to use Josephus and say well
He said it seemed like a city like several cities
Well when Josephus I can I could read the quote to you, but I pretty will have a memorized
But it says it seemed like and then he talks about it being a palace and he talks about it being a tower
Well, even if this
Roman Fort, let's say it was, it's not the size of several cities. So what Josephus was trying to communicate was that this
Antonia Fortress was a
a very strategic, important place.
It was like a palace, it was like towers,
and it had all the amenities,
but it says it seemed like it, what they didn't say it was.
And also we know that the original Antonio Fortress
was built by the Hasmoneans,
and then they buttressed it from even times before that
because the north part of the Temple Mount
was a weak spot because it was,
It was people could come downhill to attack so that fortress the Antonia fortress was there long before the Romans arrived once again
It was date the original Antonia builds back dates back at least to about 140
BC
Yeah, to make that clear there's not a geographic advantage on the north side of where the Temple Mount location is
So it makes sense to put a fortress there. You're bringing up
I believe that it was called the Bariah was the original structure that used to be there for the Hasmonean period
Which again, this is that we're talking about the Maccabees and there was a previous Jewish revolt
prior to Christ and so it makes sense that there would have been some kind of a structure there
that really the that location isn't going to change as far as its importance
so it makes sense the Romans would come alongside rebuild the fortress there
for the location. I've heard people go on cruise trips, or cruise ships, very large cruise ships
you know, even though a cruise ship isn't even necessarily the size of this Temple Mount location
or even maybe the Fortress Antonia. So I think when we talk about metaphors and hyperbole,
it's pretty easy for someone to just say something like, oh, it just seemed like cities. And
he's not actually giving dimensions. He's not actually describing anything that's quantifiable.
So, so, so Josephus to make that claim doesn't just justify
the Temple Mount is now magically being the Fortress Antonia.
That's kind of a weak argument to say the least.
But that's what I've noticed is the other side only has weak arguments here.
Yeah. Yeah, one thing if I may is...
Go for it.
So what I discovered in my research by those, and God bless them,
but by those that proposed that the temple was in the city of David,
and this was a Roman fort, and all of this,
Quote just part of it and then they will repeat that like that's all that was said whether it be scripture as we talked about David
or a solid taking arc out of the city of David whether it be Josephus
these quotes are just very selective and not in their context and then they're repeated
and most people God bless them they're not don't have the time to dig all the research and go through all of
what Josephus said and read the whole context. I downloaded several versions of
Josephus so that I could see exactly what it was saying. So once again,
God bless these people, but I found in my research that they were very, I would say if I can use
this word and I say it very kindly, respectfully, very irresponsible in their research.
Yeah, it's very selective seems like you want to bring up something Ben
Well I just wanted to mention that this part of the documentary for me was
particularly powerful because it showed that there are very real difficulties
for the Roman Fort theory when you examine the structure of the traditional
Temple Mount location. It does not simply, does not, as evidenced by what you point
out in this film here, Dr. Fink, it does not resemble a Roman Fort whatsoever. I
also appreciate the point you made, Pastor Shelley, about how if this in fact
easily penetrable and certainly not conducive to any kind of military establishment whatsoever.
But what's important about that, Josephus, quote Dr. Fink, is that he uses the word
seam.
So he's making a comparison.
It seems like a city that does not mean it literally was.
And certainly, he's not concluding that it was a Roman fort.
There's a few questions in the chat room, Pastor Shelley.
address those or wait a little bit. I do want to get to them. I think we're on a roll,
so I kind of want to keep going with some of the points that we have, but I will answer those
questions because I think there's some good questions so far. So I know I just basically
recapped what you already said. No, we need that. We need that. I do think it's important to reiterate
some of this stuff for the sake of the audience. Yeah, and again, our audience is going to try
You're gonna really learn a lot about the subject matter.
I think you could even watch it multiple times
and still learn things just because you put
so much fact in here.
But I appreciate-
I saw it multiple times.
Yeah, I appreciate the diligence too.
You can tell that these aren't just arguments
you thought of last minute,
but they're things you've thought about for years
and they meet all the criterion of sound research,
biblical research, you know, they fit
all the other different puzzle pieces together. They're not just, well, here's another random
thing that's not really fitting together, but it's a very clear narrative, clear picture.
I want to talk about clip three. So go to clip three and let's go to a couple different
other things that people maybe bring up. I think that this is honestly the number one reason why
People suggest that the temple Mount location could not be the temple
Location is because well, there's stones left one upon another that you see the Western Wailing Wall, of course and
Really, we see the whole structure if you if you were honest
And so how is it possible that Jesus and Matthew 24
Said there should not be one stone left upon another if we see these stones is this a contradiction
So let's play a little bit of this clip
Those who believe the current Temple Mount is the Antonia Fortress
try to convince us to believe that the retaining walls of the Temple Mount platform
were part of the Temple and the stones to which Jesus was referring.
The temple stood on the foundation of the large retaining walls called the Temple Mount Platform,
and they were located well inside the walls themselves.
So we have a Temple Mount Platform that had retaining walls,
and upon this Temple Mount Platform is where the buildings of the temple stood.
So they will say that because there are still stones, and of course they are referring to the Temple Mount platform,
that it couldn't be the temple because there are still stones there.
But once again, the stones are of the Temple Mount platform, not the temple itself.
Yeah, and so I actually made a video too about this a bit addressing it, but again the the Western whaling wall and
Go if you could to my screen for just a second. I want to go to a couple of these
Images and these are actually screenshots from this video, but this this golden box the square was the original temple mount
with retaining walls.
And then the red is the Hasmonean expansion.
Then the white is the Herodian expansion.
So this is like around 19 BC is an expansion
of just the platform structure,
which again, these are just a retaining wall.
So then more dirt could be filled in
to expand that platform top surface.
This is another drawing or picture of the same thing.
As Dr. Fink had pointed out,
protruding rock, which is where we believe, of course, the temple was right on top of. You had
the Ark of the Covenant on that. This is this special place on that mountain. But in order
to make everything else level around it, we have these retaining walls filled in with dirt.
This is just kind of a picture of what a retaining wall looks like in modern context,
you know, for a house. When you
have a retaining wall you're going to then fill in with all the soil and dirt and gravel to basically keep it there and
I think there's a couple pictures down here. I wanted to go to but
Specifically when we look at the wailing wall, I think when I go to this first one that I have
Yeah, so again, this is this C and D. They're on the screen. This is the temple. The temple complex is D
Then down way over here a little bit above G is where you had that
Western whaling wall would have existed not part of this temple not part of this temple building not part of this temple complex
And of course this actually matches Matthew 24 very well because the Bible says that the should not be one stone left upon another
That should be thrown down
And so you even have to ask this question, thrown down from what?
Well, it makes perfect sense in the Temple Mount, because now you're saying it was thrown down off
the Temple Mount, which is exactly what we see. There's all kinds of videos and evidence of rocks
and stones that are here on this western side that have been excavated, people have found.
And from the other theories, you know, if you did throw all these stones and all these giant,
you know, pieces of the temple, you kind of have to ask, where did it go?
you know from our viewpoint we're saying it's here from their viewpoint they it just disappeared
again there's just no stones no rocks no example of anything most of the city of david has been
excavated and a lot of these sections near the temple mount and they found stones upon another
so if they're going to make this argument
of there's no stone left upon another, well it can't be in the city of David because they've
found stones upon another everywhere in the city of David and those areas are not big enough
for the Temple Mount location. So you almost have this mystery Temple Mount that disappeared
from the other theory or it could just be this giant obvious Temple Mount location and the Temple
rocks were thrown off like Jesus said and that's where the rocks are. So I mean like you kind of
the physical evidence, the location, but I would argue that the other side saying that there's
not one stone left upon another, they cherry pick that quote and use it when they try to dismantle
this Temple Mount location, but then they forget it when they show alternative locations where
there's stones left upon another. Like the city of David. Like you kind of brought up this idea
that they're selective or irresponsible. It seems like I see a consistent pattern of them
But they don't, they're not consistent maybe with their own argument here.
What would you say about the Western Wailing Wall?
Is this part of the temple?
Does this contradict Jesus at all in Matthew 24?
Yeah, so the quote from scriptures, if you alluded to that Christ is not one stone,
we left upon another, very clear.
His disciple asked him about the buildings on the temple mount.
And Jesus said, there won't be one stone left upon another.
And that's exactly what happened.
There isn't any stones left upon top of another on the Temple Mount.
They were thrown down.
Yeah, then the idea that the western wall then was part of the temple.
And so, therefore, Jesus's words aren't true.
They're, once again, you know, God bless them,
but it's just inaccurate representation of God's word and the truth.
It's what it is. And that's that's the pattern that I found all throughout this. I found for example
Josephus says very clearly that the Roman
Fortress the Antonia Fortress was destroyed. He says that very clearly. Okay, so that's the case then it was destroyed
Another thing that really intrigued me if I may is that
and we talked about this a little bit earlier before we got on air here,
is that we know that the temple that Solomon built was built upon the threshing floor of Aruna.
So we're starting with a bare piece of ground, nothing.
Solomon builds a temple there, and then it's destroyed, Zerubbabel rebuilds it,
and then Herod renovates it.
then in 70 AD it's destroyed and then Hadrian in 135 roughly AD builds a
temple to Jupiter and then the Muslims build the Dome of the Rock in 691.
Anyway, so if the threshing floor, we start with the threshing floor and
Solomon built the temple in about 970 AD, 966 right in there. So from that
The destruction of the temple in 70 AD, that's well over a thousand years, about a thousand and forty years roughly.
Okay, so during that whole thousand and forty year structure, wherever the temple was,
there can't be any buildings underneath that because it occupied that for a thousand and forty years.
In the city of David, there is no place
where a temple could fit that doesn't have buildings dating from
970 to the 70 AD. There's buildings there, so you can't have two things existing at the same time.
Also, there are dumps in the city of David that are during the same time as the temple,
so to speak, should have been there. So
this idea that in the city of David, there's this place where this temple can fit,
One, it can't fit physically, and we can talk about that in a moment, but there has been
buildings in the city of David during that same time period, so that nullifies the possibility
of a temple even being able to be there.
Now, that's a good point because they are finding buildings that date back to the time of David and Solomon
and then they match with the stuff that we're finding on the Temple Mount.
So we actually have corroborating evidence of a timeline of these particular structures
existing at the same time, which totally destroys the Roman fort theory because if the Roman fort theory is
to be accurate, then it's like 19 BC, but we're talking about several hundred years before that
where there's evidence of structures existing in the city of David, as well as on the Timble
Mount, dating the same time period, stones, artifacts, everything, showing that this was there.
I brought up on the screen that verse that you're kind of talking about, how the Bible says that
Solomon was building the house of the Lord, not only on Mount Moriah, but on the threshing floor
of Orna on the Jebusite, or says Orana in another place. His name is mentioned in two different
great points, and there's a couple more that I want to talk about before we get into some of
these questions. There's a couple more arguments people make because they say, well, I don't
think it could be the Timble Mouth because of water, and they kind of make this argument about
water and spring. I want to bring up, let's bring up number clip four for a moment.
And I want to kind of talk about that.
I want to talk about some of the archeologists
and then I want to get in some of these questions.
So let's play clip four, maybe even clip 10 after that.
Now, let's talk about the need for water for the temple.
Those who proposed that the temple was in the city of David claimed that the current
location of the temple mount didn't have enough water for temple sacrifices and especially
enough living water.
They assert that only the Gihon Spring in the city of David had enough living water
to supply the temple's needs.
They also mention a spring that pours forth from under the Temple Mount referred to in
writings by Aristaeus, Tacitus, and the Pilgrim of Bordeaux.
So let's look at this important issue.
Biblical law identifies only three instances in which purification is to be accomplished
by the use of running water or living water.
The first is defilement by a corpse found in Numbers 1917, two by a non-routine bodily
In these instances, part of the purification process requires the use of water that flows continuously.
In all other cases of defilement, purification is accomplished by washing in water
without any requirement that it be running water or living water.
For all other ritual cleansing, regular water was used.
So there wasn't a huge need for living water for the temple's use.
Nonetheless, we will see that there was an overabundance of living water and regular water on the current temple mount.
For example, by the Temple Mount there were other large pools with running water going through them.
There were the pools of Bethesda to the north of the temple and the pool of Siloam to the south.
Just these pools alone provided over 54 million gallons or 205 million liters of water.
And these were continually flowing.
Additionally, there were aqueducts from Bethlehem that ran to the Temple Mount that were in
existence in at least 250 BC.
This was long before the Romans arrived, and these supplied living water to the Temple.
Many archaeologists believe that the aqueducts even date back to the time of Solomon.
so the facts are that it wasn't the Romans who initially built the aqueducts and their purpose
was for the current Temple Mount platform and you can see today the remains of these aqueducts
that led from Bethlehem to the current. This is a really good spot too and you know there's a
large pools of water very north of this place geographically speaking that we see a water system
brought all the way down into Jerusalem,
actually going through different cities
and then down into Jerusalem.
Some have suggested, oh, the Romans built these aqueducts,
but it seems like there's plenty of evidence
like brought up in this documentary.
of these structures already being in existence. Perhaps maybe the Romans came alongside and
upgraded them, of course, which is always the case. You always need to upgrade infrastructure
such as roadways and railroads and all kinds of things are rebuilt over time,
but that doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to. And in the same way with these water systems,
You know without these water systems a lot of these places wouldn't have been thriving anyways
The reason why Jerusalem's thriving and a successful city is because of these aqueduct systems and water systems being put there
You know, is that also your opinion that the Romans has come alongside and just kind of upgrade these systems later? Dr.
Fink. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely
Absolutely
And there's also on the Temple Mount, there are 37 cisterns in the original temple platform that Solomon built.
There are 16 cisterns. Guess when these date to?
They date clear back to the time of Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah.
So why in the world would they have all these cisterns up there?
And so, then in the expansion, there's even more cisterns.
The Temple Mount had so much water, it had access to living water, these big cisterns,
and then, I don't know, maybe later on in the video if you want to show it,
but Hezekiah, when he was being attacked by Sennacheria,
when the threat of him being attacked existed,
then he built Hezekiah's water tunnel, and then he stopped up
It says, all of the streams of water, he says, why should
Sennacherib or the Assyrians come and find an abundance of water?
So he talked about stopping up the rivers and all of these streams.
So Jerusalem lies at about 2000 feet in elevation.
It's a lot of rain in the winter.
And so they captured this water, it ran off.
So the pools of.
Bethesda, which are just north of the Temple Mount, they were fed by diverting water from the Kidron
stream and then diverting it to the pools of
Siloam, and pardon me, the pools of Bethesda, and the pools of Bethesda, the first one was built by Hezekiah, and then the next one was built later on.
So there was a lot of water in Jerusalem.
They
Some claim that the Gihon spring was like the only source of water.
It's just not the case whatsoever.
There's a lot of other water that Jerusalem had.
Yeah, so just to recap again, you know, the Temple Mount location has cisterns that are
located on the Temple Mount, 37 approximately.
We have potentially a water system through the aqueducts that's bringing more water from
different locations.
You have other pools that are north of the Temple Mount location, plus you just have
the simple fact that they could have just just brought water.
from a water source. You have a molten sea. The Bible brings up that it had the capacity for 2000
baths. And I personally believe that when you kind of study scripture that they probably had this
molten sea, they probably had fire underneath this molten sea. The Bible says they had 10 lavers.
And I believe it's basically a giant water heater. And so they had access to running hot water
anywhere that they needed up there on the Temple Mount.
So to clean off all of their instruments,
to clean off their body, to take showers, to do whatever,
they had access to what we would think of
as modern showers today with this giant molten sea.
And so, you know, a lot of these arguments about water
are just kind of not taking into consideration
all of these other factors,
different points that are being brought up.
Let me, if I may, make one real powerful point.
So, in the three instances in scripture where it talks about living water being required.
Those wouldn't have taken place on the Temple Mount. Why? Because you had to be pure to go on to the Temple Mount.
So the priest had to be pure before they even stepped foot on the Temple Mount.
A leper couldn't go on the Temple Mount without being peered.
That's why there's over 50 mikvahs around the southern part of the Temple Mount.
So the idea, the repeated statements, that the Temple Mount
couldn't be the Temple Mount is because it didn't have any living water.
Well, even if it didn't have living water, it wasn't even necessary on the Temple Mount anyway.
Once again, the purification took place before you stepped foot on the Temple Mount.
Yeah.
And I think that they bring up in your documentary,
there's an excavation where the pool of Siloam is,
kind of south in the city of David,
and then this clear pathway
where they could have walked from the pool of Siloam
up to the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount location
to then come into the temple.
Cause like you said,
they kind of have to be cleansed or purified first.
before they go up there and they go near the temple and these things. And so
kind of makes sense. You take a shower at home before you go to church and they're kind of taking
their ritual baths, you know, apart from their sanctuary area and then traveling to the sanctuary
area. They're not necessarily cleansing themselves in the sanctuary. However, I do believe they did
have the molten sea there and other
cleaning instruments because they did offer a lot of sacrifices there.
Yeah. It would have had a lot of bloodshed. So the water, pardon me, the water
needed on the Temple Mount was for the sacrificial system.
It wasn't for purifying the priest. Right.
Right, because they had to be purified before even entering the premises, stepping
foot on the premises.
Absolutely. You bring up also in the documentary that
There's plenty, plenty of water sources on the traditional Temple Mount location, for sure, in and around it, but even if there wasn't necessarily...
just hypothetically speaking, it would still be able to function because when the house of God
was in Shiloh, that was the case, and yet it was able to function perfectly fine. So this idea
that water is this sort of smoking gun that somehow disproves the traditional location of the temple
Pardon the pun here. I'm gonna do this. You guys are gonna cringe doesn't hold much water at all. Yeah. Yeah, I like that point
Yeah, you're you're exactly right in the temple and in Shiloh that existed for 369 years
It had no running running water. The closest water was about a mile away
They're holding their water. That's full. Yeah, yet. It's able to function. Yeah
Now, I want to bring up another kind of a bigger point.
We've really addressed a lot of things, just to kind of recap.
We talked about, from a Bible perspective, the traditional Timble Mount meets Scripture.
Additionally, we brought up some of the archaeological discoveries and how the original Temple Mount
location meets that 500 qubit description of Jewish writings. We've seen artifacts. We see the
structures and the differences in these stones. Those are some really clear evidences. We see
the contrast between that and a Roman fortress and how they're not compatible whatsoever.
We see how the water can be addressed.
Another thing I would like to point out or talk about a little bit is, if the
temple was really here, or this really was at Roman Fortress, we would think that
archaeology would match the Bible. Like, we believe the Bible's true, literally, so it should match.
Wouldn't there be some clear archaeology and support of another theory to where there's
many archaeologists suggesting this?
Do you find any experts or archaeologists advocating for another theory, Dr. Fink?
No, so currently today, counting the 1900s or the 20th century and 21st century, we roughly
have around 38 leading archaeologists in Jerusalem, specializing in Israel, Jerusalem.
Not one of them, to my knowledge.
Says that the Temple Mount was not where it is today now
Archaeologists aren't infallible. There are some things I think that maybe they've gotten wrong for example the location of Mount
Scioni in the Scioni Peninsula
I think that the better argument now the evidence is shifting over to Mount Scioni
But what what you see in and I appreciate what you guys said at the very beginning. We're really in a quest for truth
It's not my agenda I'm trying to push, it's not your agenda, we're just trying to bring
forth the truth.
We want to be reasonable, okay?
So when we see all of this evidence, and we see all of these archaeologists, then why
are we going to discredit all of this evidence and cling to some very weak arguments?
So, to answer your question, to my knowledge, there are no archaeologists that say that
the temple was down in the city of David, and I think you're going to maybe bring up
Eli Shukron here in a moment, if you want to do that now, you can.
Yeah.
Well, and I want to comment on what you said.
Because there's a thing, we're not making any money on this podcast.
I don't have a book to sell you.
You can watch Dr. Fink's documentary on YouTube for free right now.
And so I have no financial incentive. Like you said, I just want to know the truth on this issue.
And I just like the truth no matter what it is. And so I think the truth is always powerful.
It slices through the lies. But kind of in this vein of archaeologists, there is a book that
someone is selling. It's called Temple. It's by a guy named Robert Cornuke. And in this book,
that an archaeologist, Elisha Cron, does agree with them, essentially, about the temple not
being on the Temple Mount location. And I just want to kind of bring this up on the screen.
This is an excerpt from this book, and I'm just going to read it just so people
can get an idea of what this book is claiming and then I kind of want to talk about it because
Eli Shukron is actually featured in your documentary. You did speak to him. And so
I just want to put in this quote up here. And he is an archaeologist. He is an archaeologist.
He's famous. He's in Israel. He has just made discoveries. So they would love for him to agree
with the city of David, David theory. I just want to make this clear. They would really love
for Elisha Crone to agree with the city of David theory. The question is, does he?
Yeah. So this is Robert Cornuc saying he's in the book describing a conversation that he had with
Elisha Crone. And here is him.
quoting Elisha Cron. So it says, as I turn to go, Eli said, Bob, wait a minute, or wait
a moment, I stopped as he commented with a bemused expression. And then this is him
quoting Elisha Cron. I know you believe that the temple was at the Gihon. I have to tell
you that I am not able to say that for obvious reasons because of who I am and what I have
written over the years. But I must say that the temple absolutely
had to have spring water and there is no spring on the traditional temple mount.
It says in Numbers that the ritual purification of the red cow,
red heifer, had to have running pure spring water in quote C Numbers 19.
Now, again, number one, I want to be fair to Elisha Crone that this is just Robert Cornuke.
Telling us supposedly what he had said. We don't know for sure if he made these claims
But it kind of seems like a conspiracy theory where they're trying to suggest Eli Chakron really believes that the temple is somewhere else and
He has this ulterior motive. He can't really tell us so we have this secret book
This tell-all book that we're gonna really get his secret personal opinion, but I want to play a clip from
your documentary where you talk to him in person and we have him in clip 11,
you know, at least explaining to us his opinion on this. Let's go ahead and play this clip real
quick. Some have quoted Eli Shukron, one of the most famous and knowledgeable archaeologists in
Israel, as stating he believes the temple was in the city of David.
This is completely opposite of the truth.
Recently, I ran into Eli in Jerusalem
and asked him in his own words to clarify this twisting of his words.
So, just so we know, Eli is a very, very famous archaeologist.
He's one of the most significant archaeologists in Jerusalem,
so we wanted to get him from Eli's perspective.
Again, the Temple on Temple Mount, period.
All the other just idea for people and you know, we're in the world everyone can say wherever you want
But if you go to the evidence like all the evidence
So that's a mic drop right yeah, direct quote from him temple on Temple Mount done period now
I guess you'd almost have to say
that their theory that they're just calling it like saying he's just bold-faced lying there or
something or not being sincere or change his mind. I mean, I don't know. Do you think that there's
this conspiracy theory that Elisha Crone really believes in this alternative city of David thing
and he can't tell us for some nefarious reason?
No, no Eli is very respected. He has a history behind him. He's done many archaeological digs
He has shown himself. He's proven himself
What he said to me was not the only account of him denouncing this theory.
The YouTube channel, IsraelGuys, they interviewed Eli as well.
So Eli is very clear that he does not believe this. He's very emphatic about it.
And what's interesting is that you can even watch videos released within the last eight months where Bob blesses heart.
still maintaining that Eli is saying these things even after Eli has said no I
haven't so he just seems to continue saying this and I I want to be as kind
and as respectful as possible but it's just I just find all of this very very
puzzling.
What is what is really going on and why are we doing this?
Why are we continuing in this belief when all of the evidence says otherwise? I
Say it very kindly. You you men are educated men. You've gone to Bible college. I've gone to Bible college have a few degrees
If I use the same research in a paper that I'm seeing used
by these others
I would have flunked. I would have earned no degree because the research would have just been a total fail.
And so that's what I see on these that promote this theory is the research is really, really poorly done and manipulative, twisting.
And I mean, if I was Eli, I would be quite upset that I was being misrepresented.
don't believe Eli is lying. I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all.
Well, someone's not being honest here because it seems like he's being represented as this
person who can't tell us his real thoughts or something, which I'm even skeptical of if Eli
did believe that. Let's just say Eli just went out and just said, you know, I think that the
temple's really somewhere else or I'm not sure. I don't know if that would totally
stop him from doing his work, maybe it would.
I think because it's so overwhelming, the evidence
and how obvious these things are,
it may cause a lot of people to lose faith
and his ability to be a reasonable source of information.
But it would, if someone's trying to sell books though,
sensationalized books where they're trying
to make a lot of money,
on these alternative theories, if they had to admit,
yeah, actually I lied, or no, there is no support,
there is no archeological evidence,
yeah, there is plenty of water,
then at that point, they can't sell their book anymore.
At that point, they kind of lose all their funding.
So, from a motive perspective,
it seems like the person who's more incentivized
financially to keep repeating that
would be the person who's financially profiting off of it.
I don't believe Eli's making any money off of this book.
this temple book or any of these other YouTube documentaries or films. And so I think that he
probably has a less incentive to be dishonest. I appreciate your comment about us being educated.
Neither of us have been to Bible College in all fairness. I don't want our audience to
think something more highly than us, than they ought to think. But we do love the Bible. We're
students of the Bible, regardless if we have the pedigree or not. But
We really, I can truly appreciate the comment you're making because in an education situation where we're in
college or we're writing
papers, we need to source things and we need to have
documentation to prove where we're getting this information, who we got it from, is this credible sources, and if we were writing papers
to put them out there to be peer-reviewed and
academically scrutinized,
they would be flunked, like you said. They would totally not pass the SNF test. There's no legitimacy
to them. And, you know, science and history and education is constantly challenging narratives
and bringing up new information. And when they can't be easily discarded, they end up replacing
old theories. So there's nothing in the education system that says you can't challenge a traditionally
But when you don't have sufficient evidence or anything really to stand on, well, then, you know, it just looks like a bad paper.
Is that kind of a fair way to argue that, Ben?
Yeah, yeah.
So this new theory roughly came out by Martin in around 2000.
Ernest Martin.
Yeah, he wrote a book and and anyway.
So then others took that and kind of ran with it.
Anyway, it's caused a lot of.
interest and so what's happened is a lot of people have researched this and so that and more and more
truth and evidences come out and all of the truth and evidence now is overwhelming this new theory
and so you have no this theory didn't exist prior to 2000
okay even the muslims when they built the dome of the rock they asked the jewish priest
Where is this was the temple and he told him it's right here with Iraq is which before that the temple Hadrian built was there so once again we have this archaeological layer system going back in time that's traceable.
And so, this is a new theory that no one has brought up until just recently and now because
of it being brought up, then now people have gotten more involved in it and now it's just
if you go on YouTube and you look or these different places, you will see now that there's
just a lot of stuff, you've just done a video, others are doing videos that are just overshadowing
It's not defendable when you when you look at the evidence, you know, we just use a scale, you know to you know
The the evidence for the temple being on the Temple Mount the weight is so heavy is so
Overwhelming versus these weak arguments that are oftentimes most of the time they're taking out a context and
and made to be quotes that are partial quotes, scripture that just a little bit is scripture,
but then claim that we're basing this on God's word. Once again, that's very troubling and very
puzzling. Yeah, much younger theory as you point out tonight on the podcast and also in your film.
I also think it is worth noting the complete lack of
archaeologists on their side. I mean, the lack of expert, you know, witnesses or opinions on their side that would actually lend credence to their position, and there is a very small, a very, very small minority of those opposition voices who would even go as far as insulting the intelligence of people.
who agree with our position.
And whether they like men like Pastor Shelley
or like me or not is irrelevant,
but
I would challenge them, why would you insult the intelligence of the many, many archaeologists
who believe in the traditional Temple Mount location, or men like Dr. Fink, others who
are sincerely looking at this issue without any preconceived notions that are being led
to their conclusion based on the overwhelming evidence.
I would challenge them to rethink the way that they're looking at this situation here,
but you would expect there would at least be one credible archaeologist that upholds
There doesn't seem to be that anywhere.
Yeah, and again, the one archaeologist that's typically brought into this conversation
is making clear statements that he doesn't believe it.
Now, again, I guess you could make another conspiracy theory that,
well, he's not really being honest or something,
but I'm going to give Eli Shukron the benefit of the doubt here.
I think he is being honest.
I think that he just sincerely likes archaeology.
He has made some discoveries.
There was a discovery called Temple Zero where this is what it's being described as as a
small little place near the Gihan Spring that he believes could have been tracing all the way back
to a time well even before David. And I think that there has been articles saying that it's
around the time of David. So I don't know who's, you know, the most accurate on some of those
Uh, it's not where these temple structures were, but it's just a new discovery in the city of David.
Um, and to me, like, if I were to make, uh, a video or a documentary about this subject,
I just wouldn't want to have people in my film as the star when they disagree with the film publicly,
or they disagree with my opinion publicly. I would think that you would want people that, uh,
say exactly what you believe and are just standing on the truth if that's what their true opinion was.
And again, I'm not accusing Eli of not holding just convictions because I believe he truly does believe the temples on the Temple Mount.
It's obvious. I mean, there's every evidence, every history fact, every archaeological fact, every biblical fact.
I mean, it's super, super clear.
That doesn't mean that there couldn't be someone who...
Looks at something in the Bible and says I don't understand how that fits with our particular view
And I'm still studying that learning and trying to get more information as to how to
Understand that that point
But that doesn't mean that they're discrediting their entire worldview because they can't answer a specific Bible verse
Sometimes we come across Bible verses and I just say you know, I don't know how I don't know how that makes sense
I don't know what that means, but I still believe
Bible. I still believe Jesus Christ died on the cross. I still believe all the facts of the Gospel
just because I can't answer one minute thing. I would hate for someone to twist that and then
say, oh, see this guy doesn't even believe in the Bible because there's this one thing he
doesn't understand or is confused on. So I think that that's what's happening. I think people are
twisting Eli's viewpoint here, his words, maybe things he said to fulfill a narrative because
We've had a couple of questions in the chat and I want to get to them and then we can kind of
cover anything else you'd like to mention Dr. Fink, but someone had asked in the chat
and I don't know if I actually understand this question fully so I kind of want to see
We'll see if Dr. Fink understands what's being discussed here. Hopefully it kind of makes sense
to him, but they were asking is the Watergate the same as MythCad or Fountaingate?
And I don't know how to answer that question because I don't know anything about those.
Do you know what those distinctions are, Dr. Fink?
Um, yeah, I've...
I've heard about these. I don't know exactly the honest with you. I don't I haven't researched it to know enough to really add
I'm sorry. I tell people when I go on we lead tours. I don't know everything
I'm still a learner in fact every night. I am usually watching something while I exercise about Israel
Just to learn and grow so I have heard those terms, but I I can't
really honestly address them. I'm sorry about that.
No, that's totally fine because we don't even know what they're asking.
So we don't know. We're all learning here.
It's all right. Yeah.
Move on to the next question.
You know, one thing to mention, too, that you brought up about this,
Brother Ben, is Dr. Fink is someone that made this documentary two years ago,
I believe is the approximate date that you made this particular film.
And until just maybe like a few weeks ago, we had not run across each other
I reached out to Dr. Fink. I simply just asked him to come on the show and talk about his
viewpoint because I really liked his film. So here's someone that's had this viewpoint for years
and you have no idea who we are virtually. I mean we first time we communicated was just a few
weeks ago Dr. Fink and I'm assuming you've never watched our show. You don't know anything about
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff out there that I haven't come across but I really value what you guys are doing and I'll certainly
Pay more attention to what you guys are are doing and thank you for your work
But I just want to make that clear because the point that you're making brother been is that you know
There's plenty of people that have researched this topic and really care about the subject that have no vested interest
and a particular outcome. They just wanted to know the truth and they've already researched these
things. They've already made their films and their documentaries proving these things wrong.
Right. It's not like Dr. Fink is just trying to appease you or vice versa when you just met.
Exactly. So he's here to just express what he believes is the truth.
Yeah. We're just answering the naysayers. We're on a quest for the truth.
Before they even say anything. Here's another thing that kind of sometimes gets brought up in
And I know that you have also researched this a little bit.
You have some opinions.
I think some of the people in our audience really like this question, too.
And so this is the question that was proposed to me.
But do you believe the traditional Golgotha and tomb location
at the church of the Holy Sepulchre?
So if you want to just kind of talk about that a little bit
and whatever your opinions are.
Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.
When we lead two or trips to Israel, the garden tomb, which is north of the old city, is really peaceful and tranquil,
and God bless them, they have great hearts, and we've gone there to meditate and stuff, but again, I researched and I researched and I researched,
Clear back to the time of Jesus at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre garden tomb was discovered in the 1850s
It's an Old Testament tomb. It's not a new tomb like scripture says
During the time of Jesus army during the time of Jesus the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was outside the city walls
We know that anyway
You have layers upon layers of history have eyewitness account you have the early believers and then you have
Hadrian in 135 who builds a temple there to Jupiter and to Venus.
And then that's torn down by Constantine. You have eyewitnesses like Eusebius,
Jerome, well-respected church fathers who sought,
and they said, this is where Golgotha is. Then you have,
once again, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre built there. It's torn down.
Muslims built stuff there. It's torn down. So you have this.
layer upon layer upon layer going right back to the time of Jesus, so I know that it's
Catholic and I know sometimes that people, especially Protestants, maybe sometimes feel uncomfortable there when we lead
to our trips to Israel, I tell the people, you know, if we avoided every site in Israel that we don't agree with what they believe,
You know, there's Muslim sites we go and see, there are Catholic sites, there are Orthodox sites, there are many different sites because you have a land going back, you know, 4,000 years old and since Christ, 2,000.
So, anyway, yes, there is no doubt in my mind where Golgotha is. It was at where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is. You have archaeological evidence going from now right back to that time.
I've said this in my quest for the truth, especially in, you know, things,
Israel archaeology, and I'm not an archaeologist, is that when things fit,
you don't have to twist it. You don't have to manipulate stuff.
It just all flows and comes together. The evidence will just come together.
Not that it's perfect, but it really comes together and you have an overwhelming body of evidence.
And so that's what we have, whether it be the Temple Mount, whether it be where
Christ was crucified. Why would the Temple Mount have existed for, you know, 3,000 years
if it wasn't the spot and have all these archaeological layers? Why would the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre have existed for 2,000 years, have all these different layers?
Real estate, especially in Jerusalem and Israel, is priceless.
it's priceless. It wasn't the spot. These places would have been sold and buildings built over them,
but they were preserved and protected because you have generation after generation layer upon layer
of evidence of these places being the true, true site. So yeah, I believe that the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre is authentic Galgotha. Yeah, and for our audience's purposes, I kind of put this on
here on the screen. If you go just directly west, there is what is known as Golgotha and the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Now, from my understanding, isn't it true that the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre is actually technically Greek Orthodox? Actually, it has about,
yeah, it has six different churches that actually have ownership in it because it's so valuable
I just remember a Greek, like there was a Greek professor
I was taking some Greek classes from
and he makes a big deal about everything
being Greek Orthodox over there.
And I think that the Greek Orthodox control more sites
or more locations than the Catholics do.
But again, I'm not an expert on that.
One thing that I find kind of interesting though
And again, I haven't I haven't really researched the church of the holocaust occur as much as just the temple mount structure
but if you kind of go to the east of the temple mount location and
I don't know how much Google Maps is gonna help us here with labeling but just kind of on this other side
you have what's known as the mount of all okay here you go here's a label the mount of all those and
Kind of down in this region on a lot of maps will show you
just underneath Gethsemane was where the Garden of Gethsemane was.
And if you think about Jesus Christ's last moments or last day,
he kind of starts down here in Gethsemane in the Garden of Gethsemane.
He's taken to the Temple Mount.
He goes, he travels from the east to the Temple Mount.
Then if, you know, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the accurate location,
then he would have finished his life here.
And it's almost like a journey of the sun, literally, because the sun
rises in the east and sets in the west and you kind of have this
The temple mount as being kind of your focal point
Maybe if you think about it where you kind of have the sun rising on the east coming in the east in the morning
And then setting on the west side on the evening and it almost makes the same journey as the sun makes on in our
You know from our our perspective as a human because we're standing on the earth
obviously worse spinning, and yet it gives this appearance of the sun coming up in the east
setting in the west, just like Jesus kind of does this journey from the east all the way to the
west, which I find kind of an interesting pathway. One other thing I want to kind of mention about
Some have brought up this idea that Jesus actually was crucified on the east and he was kind of crucified back over here somewhere near the Mount of Olives or
down in this southern portion and then they claim that well
there's this verse in the Bible that talks about the Romans and Turian and
what he saw at the time that Jesus Christ was crucified and they make this argument that somehow the Romans and Turian
saw the veil of the temple rent
When Jesus was crucified and the only way he could see it is from the east side because its
Geography is actually a little bit higher in
Elevation and so because that area is a little bit higher in elevation they could see down to where the tomb about is located
That is evidence that this Roman centurion saw this location
Where's that from this vantage point of the church of the Holy Sepulchre?
They wouldn't be able to see it, but first of all, I would say never when the Bible doesn't say that explicitly
Number two, you would have to be near an edge of a cliff, no matter where you are over here on this east side to be able to even see
towards this Timbermount location. But third, you're not going to be seeing through Temple
buildings, walls, and through that first veil, all the way to see into the second veil of the Holy of Holies.
I think it's kind of absurd.
to think that just no matter where you were standing,
you could just be seeing the Holy of Holies
at any point in time, especially at Roman Centurion
having these eagle eyes just like zoomed across the valley,
the Kidron Valley seeing the Holy of Holies.
I mean, is there any legitimacy to this argument
because I've never been there.
So, you know, I'm only looking at Google Maps,
but you know, from this East side,
are they really gonna be able to see
into the Holy of Holies?
Is this even a possibility?
Not, not even possible. And when you look at what Bob Cornuk says, he places the
Dalgotha directly east of the Gihon Spring where he believes the temple was.
So that is even south. So it's south of the Mount of Olives.
So, in order to see the curtain, the veil of the curtain, you have to be looking directly
through what would have been the beautiful gate, then the Nicanor gate, and then inside
the Holy of Holies.
So you have to have an absolutely direct line of sight.
where this Golgotha is placed by Bob Cornu, is way south of the temple.
So you can't even line up with it. You would be looking from the southeast,
looking at the temple. So that theory is
Once again, with all the respect I can muster. It's just
really lacks any credibility whatsoever. And
also, if it was the true site,
let's say you go to Jerusalem and you say, hey, where is Galgotha?
Where do we think Galgotha is? Well, let's say we have five options.
Well, how about Galgotha is where you've had 2,000 years of unbroken history?
Maybe that's where it is, rather than southeast of the temple in a place that has no history whatsoever, has nothing going back in time.
So once again...
In these holy sites, the way you know you're at an authentic place is just follow a timeline going from the present down through time and when you see layer upon layer upon layer, you know that you're in the right spot and you don't have that in this theory down southeast of the Temple Mount.
going off is not there.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
I even would argue, you know,
something you brought up, I mean,
Hebrews talks about after the second veil,
the Tabernacle, which is called the Holiest of All,
I think the Bible paints a picture, there was two veils,
and so there's no way to even see into the Holy of Holies.
And then additionally,
you know, the verse they're bringing up,
Matthew,
I think it's mentioned in multiple Gospels.
But in Matthew 27, it says,
and be able to veil the temple's rent and twain
from the top to the bottom,
and the earth did quake and the rocks rent
and the graves were open
and many bodies of the saints which slept arose
and came out of the graves after his resurrection
and went into the holy city and appeared unto many.
Now, when the Centurion and they that were with them
watching Jesus saw the earthquake
and those things that were done,
they feared greatly saying, truly this was the Son of God.
So when it kind of brings up
what he's seeing in Matthew 27 it's saying he's seeing the earthquake and he's just kind of seeing
some of these things. It doesn't say specifically he saw the veil of the temple rent. That's just
something that happened concurrently. It's also bringing up how many people came back to life
or they rose again from the dead. There's no way the centurion saw all of them simultaneously come
back from the dead or out of their graves too. Like he can't be seeing Jesus and the earthquake
and tons of people coming out of the graves and the Holy of Holies all just simultaneously.
It's obviously just saying like this all just happened in a moment of time and this the Roman
Centurion is experiencing this of Jesus dying the earthquake and and just being in awe of what
just transpired and then realizing oh wow this really was the the Son of God this is not a normal
the scripture and he doesn't have to see the veil of the temple rent for him to believe
in Christ or something like that.
I think that that's a kind of a straw man argument.
It's a really weak argument to suggest that that overturns again.
Like you said, the archaeological evidence of buildings being built over top of each
other for long periods of time, especially, you know, look at any major city in the world,
especially older cities, go to Europe.
You notice that a lot of their roadways are actually built on brick roadways because that
was the old road that they've had for hundreds and hundreds of years.
all of this archaeological evidence to just
believe just crazy conspiracy theories in the same way Jerusalem
let's be honest it's one of the most hotly contested and fought over regions
of the world and has been for centuries so this isn't like some random desert
location that everyone forgot about and left
There's been people living in this area since the time of Christ.
People have been fighting over this area for a long period of time.
This is considered a very holy and sacred place to the two largest religions in the world, Christianity and Islam.
So it is kind of just crazy to think that they all forgot about it.
And, you know, this theory of them getting it wrong, you would have to believe they got it wrong.
in 600 something AD, because the Dome of the Rock was placed there like a long time ago.
So it's not like we have to think like, oh, they recently forgot this or something.
They would have had to have forgotten this 100 and what, 35 AD when Hadrian built the Temple
Jupiter. They would have ever got it. 600 something AD. Like this is not something that
just Johnny come lately. We finally found it and everybody forgot.
I mean, this is something that millions and millions
of people have been aware of, known, believed,
they've built their whole lives around.
I mean, this is a major, major thing.
I think that it would be crazy to think
that all of this can just be discarded
for really what you said, just some selective quotes,
some selective evidence.
Supposedly an archaeologist that's apparently not telling the truth according to their theory, which again, I think he is
I'm thinking I'm just saying like their evidence when you really look at it is so weak
But I guess when you're trying to sell a book, you know, that's maybe the real motive there and and you know
I'm trying to be
somewhat fair to their position, but and in honest in honesty, it doesn't seem very intellectually honest, you know
I want to get Ben thoughts here. Yeah, go ahead
Well, I mean, I went into this issue without having a dog in the fight, and I was given
a couple of documentaries to look at, one that was a proponent of the city of David
Theory and the other one actually was yours, Dr. Fink.
And to me, it was pretty obvious from the scripture, it was pretty obvious based on
all the evidence that you put forward in your film, where the temple actually was.
I think the whole point of this is what I said at the top, no matter how secondary the
issue may seem on the surface, I think it's still important to search for truth and there
may be some who question the relevance of this but at the end of the day, truth is truth
and we need to figure out what actually is right and we need to be champions for that
You decided to really dive into this was it because you were aware of the city of David theory and
wanted to
Debunk it or what was sort of your motivation to get involved?
Yeah, thank you. So we've been you know going to Israel for about 15 years now and then leading teams and stuff
so when I came across this new theory because I
Honestly, I hadn't researched it that in depth.
I just kind of took what I was told and this is kind of the major view out there by all
these archaeologists and no one really questioned it, but then I come across this new theory
and it's like, what?
So I began to research it partly because I wanted to make certain that when we led teams
to Israel that we could tell them, you know, with in truth, you know, what is the evidence
and stuff like that?
So that's what got us involved in it.
One of the things, if I may just say a couple things, is this idea, and there are some books
out there to written, and even some videos, the temples that the Jews forgot, these lost
temples. There's that out there. Yeah, that's so far from the truth,
The Jewish faith and their temple, we have to understand the temple was everything
Starting from Mount Sinai the tabernacle to the temple. That was their whole connection with God
That's why it says when they were exiled to Babylon if I forget you oh Jerusalem let my my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
They were commanded not to forget
So and we had this unbroken layers of evidence so the Jews
Did not forget if you go to Jerusalem. I think in the video. I show it they have libraries upon libraries upon libraries
I would say that there's probably no culture more educated than the Jews. Okay, especially your orthodox Jews
They did not forget
Where the where the temple was and so then if we carry this thought and if I may this whole idea of
Their life being connected to the temple so therefore in the new covenant when we are now when we become the the temple and
Now Christ dwells in us
and his Shekinah glory dwells in us,
that is a thought that is really off the charts.
We sometimes don't really understand,
but if you put yourself in the shoes of the Jews,
man, their temple was everything,
so they did not forget where their temple was.
And then if I may add too,
that the belief that Golgotha is east
of where the Gihon spring was,
and we use this verse,
Well, you quoted one and then the other one that is quoted is Luke 2345 through 47, which
mentions nothing about the location.
Once again, I have just found a thread throughout all of this, where it's just really...
How can I be gracious just so far from being being truthful and being honest with God's word?
I've attended, you know different things. I'm certain you guys have too
When we expound God's word
We're men of God we expound God's word what we want to hear or see we want it to be like Jesus in the corner
And when we expound his word, we want to Jesus be given like
Yeah, yeah, that's that's it. That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying
So we're handling God's word truthfully. We don't want Jesus in the corner going
That's not what I meant at all or whether it be Yahweh in the Old Testament. That's not what I meant at all
And so sometimes this is what I found in through all of this is this real lack of
Handling God's word with integrity looking at all of the context and
Being honest with God's word and let letting God's word speak rather than me and you guys know this rather than me going to the text and
Wanting to make the text fit what I want to say
I go to the text and say, what does God want to say in this text?
And I have the responsibility to responsibly handle that text, and that's what I see lacking
on those who have this other theory.
Yeah, I agree and I want to reiterate a few points here because the Jews are very meticulous in certain things
You know
We had made a documentary on the Bible and in our film called the Preserve Bible. It's PreserveBible.com
You can see that the Jews are very meticulous about keeping the Hebrew portion of the Bible and
that if it's even got a scratch or it's got something off that they would often bury them.
Now I think that it would have been better to burn the older manuscripts because I think people
have unearthed bad transcripts of the Bible because they unearthed some of these ones that
were buried on purpose. But I do think that it was clear that they're very meticulous about this.
You're right about them not forgetting the temple location because Nehemiah and them come back from
and have to rebuild the temple. It was very important for them to identify that correct location.
Of course, it's a very significant location for God. And I believe that it still stays as a
significant location for, you know, end times events. And of course, the Jewish religion doesn't
accept Christ. And they're more concerned with the physical temple than they were with
Jesus Christ who was the true temple and they ended up crucifying him and you know of course
we as Christians we want Jews and non-Jews to believe in Jesus Christ and to be saved and it's
it doesn't really matter for us today we don't need a physical temple today but I do think that
that physical temple will play a major role in the end times and I think just being able to understand
where that's going to happen and when that's happening is significant for Christians.
There's definitely different eschatological views as far as like what they think then times are going to look like
And but at the same time we're supposed to watch the Bible is clear
We're supposed to watch for the end times. We're supposed to be paying attention for these things and
If they start building a temple on that temple Mount location by whatever means, you know
I don't know how that would happen exactly
but if they do that's going to be significant to me from an end times perspective and so I think it's important to
for us to at least be aware of these things,
what they are, what their ramifications can be
for the end times.
And I don't wanna get into an end times discussion with you,
but I'm just saying that it is significant
no matter what your end times views are.
Don't you see this knowledge bin is having some benefit
to just understanding end times
and what events may transpire.
I think when the third temple is built, there can be a propensity for those who believe in the City of David view to say,
What are you looking at? There's nothing to see here because that's not even the right spot
And so when that way it can eventually become very relevant for us as we do inch closer and closer to the events of Daniel 70th week
There's no question. Yeah, and I think that it could lend itself to a view called preterism
Which I don't hold to I don't believe in and preterism. I'm pre-millennial
But the idea of preterism kind of suggests that
all the things in Revelation have already happened and all these things have been fulfilled and so
it could be a way for them to say like see there's not going to be a third temple or there's not
going to be any of these other end time events because it's already happened, it's already been
filled. It's kind of a way to just like almost get away from any end times events happening.
And so again I think that this stuff is important. I'm not a Preterist.
I think that preterism is kind of a false doctrine that can lead people down some other bad conclusions,
and I think that this viewpoint might could lend itself to preterists, partial preterists,
or other strange end times views. And so, you know, there's going to be a lot of deception in the end times.
I don't know that this other theory has much traction,
but there are some videos online
have a couple million views on this particular topic.
And I appreciate someone like you who took the time
to answer, I guess, what I felt like is a silly question
and prove where the true tabernacle is
and spend some time talking about the archeology
because,
I found your documentary truly fascinating. It was really engaging. You made a lot of great
points. No waste of time. You didn't waste their time. I mean, you just went fact fact. I mean,
the film is just fact fact fact fact and and that's what I really like about it. I think when
you're evaluating any two theories, one side just appeals to fact fact fact fact and the other one
and you can really when you contrast them together, you can kind of see who's really appealing to
sources of truth and hard facts and information. So that's why I really appreciated about your
documentary and the work that you've done. We're really thankful you're coming on the show.
We want to be respectful of your time too, but if there's something that we haven't covered
or there's something else you wanted to bring up, we want to give you another chance here.
Is there something that you would like to address?
Yeah, thank you when we did the
Documentary there was a lot of stuff that we left out because we thought wow an hour and a half
I mean that's that's quite a while and so there was a lot of stuff we left out
I we could make one. That's three hours long really
But I'll wrap up with this and once again. Thank you guys really appreciate you and my and admire you
Why is this so important? Well interestingly all the way from
Exodus
20, just shortly afterward, where the temple now is going to be talked about at the Tabernacle,
you have a line of the temple being important from...
Exodus all the way to Revelation. So as you mentioned, you alluded to, the end
times is going to center, the tribulation period is going to center right in
Jerusalem on that Temple Mount because it's from there the Antichrist is going
to reign. Okay? And so then Christ comes back in power in great glory, Matthew 24,
on that Temple Mount and rain from right there.
So yes, it is important.
Where is it at?
Because it is a continual line that God deals with
from Exodus all the way to Revelation,
Antichrist is gonna rain from there,
Jesus Christ is gonna rain from there in the Tribulation
and guess what?
If you don't get a chance to go to Israel,
now you will when you come back with Christ
because you're gonna rain with him from Jerusalem.
for a thousand years. So God has big things and then of course you have the eternal new Jerusalem.
So yeah, getting the location of where it was at is important. It is extremely important.
And thank you for bringing it up and for your viewers who have stuck with us for quite a while here.
God bless you and it is very important. So it's really special to be here and thank you so much.
You know, I do believe that the Antichrist is kind of behind that third temple.
But it doesn't change that that was a holy place and is a holy place.
One of our commenters, Pastor Thompson, put in here from Matthew 24, 15,
when you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,
stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand.
So.
the Bible still gives credence to when the Abomination of Desolation is taking place,
that that place is still a holy place. And, you know, of course, I don't think that a third temple
is holy in the sense that it's kind of a rejection of the gospel, in my opinion, but it can still be
in a holy place. And that structure represents holy things. And so I think that that's what the
Bible is alluding to. And again,
Love to have an in-times discussion. That's not that's kind of out of the scope of this
I think for our audience's sake we already just kind of blew their minds on a lot of stuff because this is not a topic that
Our audience is very familiar with probably almost none of us have been to Israel before
But I do find it interesting my parents have been there twice
They really liked it. They like seeing the biblical sites
I want to ask though because it seems like from my experience at least talked to my parents and just having traveled myself
That if I get off the plane
There's gonna be ten guys that want to come up to me and say let me show you the quote true location of all these different spots and
I kind of find that there's a lot of tourist traps
anytime you go to a really popular
area that
there's maybe a lot of gimmicks and a lot of people that'll say you are going to come to the
real location or the true location. Is that is that true because again I haven't been there but
I'm just kind of wanting your opinion. Is there a lot of quote tourist traps or alternative locations
or all these different people that want to take you to the real location of all these places?
My experience has been that Israel regulates their tourist guides very strictly, and sometimes
you get self-appointed tourist guides that are going to maybe come up and say, hey, you
know, you need some help.
My experience really has been, obviously there's people that are disingenuous and are kind
of looking for maybe an easy dollar, but generally they're going to be taking you to the traditional
kind of being a self-appointed guide, you might say,
and then ask you to give them some money or whatever
has happened to us on a couple of occasions.
But by and large, yeah, when you go,
you're going to kind of fall into a valley, so to speak.
Generally, people are going to take you
to the traditional sites because...
They you know, they've been there for a long time now once again, not every site that is traditional is necessarily, you know
but you do have to give tradition and I guess I would say this in
The those who have these other theories about where the temple is and stuff like that
They kind of really
Disrespect or kind of trash tradition
Well, tradition doesn't always get it right, but yes, do give tradition and it needs a seat in the room because once again
Why would you have all of this?
History going back for thousands of years and these people given their lives and caring for these places
Why would all this be if it wasn't there a line of threads?
So but but Israel is wonderful the people are wonderful the people in the Israelis love Americans
They love America's they love
So we're always treated. When we went to Israel here in this last October, we took, there was 18 of us, we went during a time of war.
We were just, we were practically worshiped. They were so glad to see us. So anyway, yeah, the Israelis love Americans because we, by and large, even though we're Christians and they're not, you know, Christians,
Most of them they really appreciate the support that the US has given to them
Yeah, I want to read some comments
We've had over about a hundred people in our live chat this evening
Which is it's pretty good for just a random episode since we're not in season, but
Sure Foundation Baptist Church Vancouver said his documentary is great
New IFB says I'm excited to watch the documentary
Additionally, I wanted to read a few other commenters here.
We had WRLATX say Temple on Temple Mount exclamation point.
We also had Ms. King say a couple years ago when she studied Nehemiah, she ended with
nine gates.
She says it, now she's found 11 gates.
She brought up the Valley Fountain, Sheep, Fish,
Old Dung, Horse, East, Micad.
water and Ephraim. So I guess that's where she was coming with that. I think
she's the one that came up with that question about if those gates were the
same or not. Sure, Foundation Baptist Church Vancouver says this guy makes too
much sense. I agree. He makes a lot of sense. We also have Golgotha and Jesus
tomb. God never be forgotten. It's literally the most important historical
place of all time. That's a pretty good comment. We had
Oh, OSAS 2001, thank you for coming on the show, Dr. Fink.
And so he really appreciated you coming on the show.
And so yeah, we got a lot of great comments in there.
I didn't read all of them.
Oh yeah, Miss King, thanks a lot, Dr. Fink.
And he says, consider doing the version
for the hardcore students of history.
We can take long documentaries.
So I guess you got some fans out there.
We of course really appreciate you coming on. I was very excited about this interview and I know that this is kind of a
Eclectic topic maybe a niche but for me like after getting my toes wet and just kind of learning a little bit
I thought man, it'd be great if we could get him on the show and just kind of pick his brain
So I appreciate you being willing to come on the show and talk to us
It's definitely been a really great evening for us
Ben, did you have any thoughts or questions before we kind of finish here?
I think we covered it all. I don't really have anything else to add.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I consider myself a student,
and so I appreciated the chance to sit in and listen to you guys go back and forth on this.
I think that the arguments that were made were pretty straightforward, pretty simple to be
understood, though. Wouldn't you say that, Ben?
Yeah, I mean I was able to grasp it quickly. I think the documentary is laid out in an easy to understand
Manor, I think you're taking a complex subject in this film and really
Making it palatable for those who've never approached it before and so even if you've never looked at this issue or have had
No interest prior to tonight's live stream that shouldn't preclude you from going and checking out this film
I put a link in the chat earlier. I could do it again before we go off the air
So you can watch for yourself and see exactly what we're talking about.
Yeah. I think if you just search in YouTube, like true temple location,
it usually pops up Holy Land site is the YouTube channel.
You can also go to the website, holylandsite.com. And, uh, you know,
if you, if you're also wanting to learn, you know,
we recommend our documentary on the King James Bible, the preserve Bible.com.
You can check out some of our work. If you ever are interested in that, um,
We'll give you one last chance. Anything else you want to plug? How else can we find you, Dr. Fink?
Yeah, once again, you mentioned our website and our YouTube channel.
Yeah, I really, really appreciate you guys and really admire your hearts for the Lord and thank
I tell people I'm just a learner, just a student, and so just on a journey to responsibly look at the evidence.
And so that's what we've tried to do. Once again, the documentary could have been far longer, and it might be that we'll revisit this.
maybe in a year or so and do an updated version and maybe answer even more questions about this.
So, thank you for inviting me onto the show. Thank you for all your viewers.
God bless you guys, and it's been a real pleasure to be on here with you guys.
Yeah, God bless you too. And I've noticed on your, your site, you also have several books.
One of the books is what is the gospel and how to share it. Also, you're a missionary in Mexico,
which is very near and dear to our heart because we take a lot of missions trips to Mexico.
And so of course, anybody, I'm not going to give necessarily a whole gospel presentation, but
if you are out there watching and you're curious about this temple stuff, you got to realize that
and the true fulfillment of the temple,
he did die on the cross.
Whether you agree with it being
in the church of Holy Sepulchre on the east
doesn't matter because he really did die on the cross
and was buried in Rosigand three days later.
And the Bible's crystal clear that salvation is a free gift.
All you have to do is simply believe in Jesus Christ,
accept his work, the finished work on the cross,
and he'll give you eternal life.
and when you die you'll go to heaven and like Dr. Fink brought up, you'll actually get a chance to
rule and reign with Christ in the millennial reign. He is going to rule and reign in Jerusalem
and those that are saved, those who have believed in Jesus Christ and accepted his free gift will be
there to
on the earth to rule and reign with Christ for that thousand-year period. And so we obviously
encourage people to be saved and accept Christ as their Savior, accept His free gift. We really
try to be evangelistic as much as possible, but the goal of the show tonight was to talk about
the Temple Mount and, you know, again, just because people over in Israel, many of the Jews,
doesn't mean that they can't be right
about the Temple Mount location.
And so I think it's important
to recognize these historical facts.
And then of course, if you care about Jewish people,
you know, give them the gospel, try to get them saved,
help them to recognize their savior.
But I loved the show, Ben.
I thought it was a great show.
I am planning on still having maybe another discussion.
We're gonna bring a couple of pastor friends on
and we're gonna do it.
deeper dive on just the Bible, because I think there's still a lot of verses
and a lot of scripture we haven't unearthed on this topic yet,
and I want to bring up some more scriptural arguments. Of course we covered
some of the best evidences in the Bible and some of the clearest verses, but
there's even more on this topic, and so I'm excited to go and talk about the
Bible a little bit more. Is there anything else you wanted to say
before we sign off? No, I just want to repeat that
I went into this without a dog in the fight. There will be, again, the small minority of
rabid people in the opposition who will claim that I'm just going along with this because
I'm a layman and my pastor made me believe this. Actually, the complete opposite is true.
He sent me two documentaries. He said, here you go.
Which one do you think's right? You can watch it. I don't know what his opinion is at the time
I don't know anything about the subject. I watched both of them
I come to my own conclusion and so I would just say don't
Project your own insincerity on me. Okay, I come to truth based on evidence based on what the scripture says and
That's what I did in this case as well. So appreciate the chance to be here
Thank you, Pastor Shelly, for putting this on, and I look forward to the next time that
we approach this topic with those pastor friends you brought up.
Yeah, and I totally agree as well.
I don't have a vested interest in any theory here.
I just simply want to know it's true.
I love the truth.
I love the Bible.
And I found it interesting just to kind of learn about these things, how the Temple Mount
is near the Kidron Valley and where the Mount of Olives is at, because the Bible talks about
the temple. That's another verse that we didn't bring up. But I think it's interesting because
now when I read my Bible, some of these things can actually come to life in my mind. My imagination
was kind of weak in these areas. And I feel like, yeah, I feel like now I'm getting a closer picture
of what was really happening, what these things really look like. And I'm kind of excited to
reread my Bible. I'm excited to go through a lot of these verses and think about these topics
based on this new information that I'm learning and growing in. And so
I think that we should always be a constant learner, a constant student.
Keep reading your Bible, guys. Make sure to join us. It's not going to be next week,
but probably two weeks from now. We're going to have another special episode,
probably again, Tuesday night, 8 p.m. We'll have Pastor Stephen Anderson and Pastor Aaron Thompson
on. We're going to talk about this topic even more and dive into more scripture. So tune in,
check it out. And then, of course, hopefully God willing in the fall we'll be having our
fifth season? I don't even remember. Who's keeping counting? I don't even know. It's the
Baptist bias, guys. Look, everybody's got a perspective out there, but you need to get the Baptist bias.