(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

🎵 Give me understanding, that I may, learn thy commandments. Pay that purity, we'll be glad when they see me Cause I have hoped and I've learned, hoped and I've learned I am no more a liar, a liar Judgement's a lie, and that's about it Faithfulness has to fill me Let my praying be thy merciful kindness Give my comfort and glory To thy word, unto thy servant Let thy tender mercies come unto me That I may live for thy law is mine, mine, mine I am no more a liar, a liar Judgement's a lie, and that's about it Faithfulness has to fill me Proud be ashamed, for they don't disperse me without a cause But I will meditate in thy process And those that fear me, turn unto me And those that have been, those that have time to know My destiny, please, let my heart be solved in thy statutes And I do not have shame, and I believe in thy chains I believe in thy chains I believe in thy chains I know, oh, and I, judgment's a lie, and that's about it Faithfulness has to fill me Faithfulness has to fill me Thanks for joining us on The Baptist Bias, we've got a special show for you this evening Really just kind of thrown together last minute, but we're putting on a debate this evening And we've got a hot, hot guest crew today, we've got Pastor McMurtry himself He's going to be coming on the show, and we've also got Pastor Steven Anderson who's going to be moderating Now, I know what a lot of people are going to say, is they're going to say that this is unfair And that this is not really an equal debate, but you know, even though Pastor McMurtry has been to temple zero And I haven't, I'm still willing to do the show, and so I know that that's not necessarily fair But I'm willing to do it, and it's not really my show to run, so I'm going to let Pastor Anderson go ahead and take it I think you're muted or something, wait, did we get, wait one second Is that just me or is that everybody? Can you hear me now? Yep, we got you now Alright cool, so thanks for having me on at the last minute to be a totally fair and unbiased and impartial moderator tonight So what we're going to do is just have a freestyle conversation and really just let you guys talk back and forth just naturally as a conversation would go I'm just going to be kind of vaguely keeping an eye on the clock, making sure that both sides kind of roughly get equal time And then if I feel like the conversation is just getting bogged down or maybe it's getting possibly boring for the viewers at home Then I'm just going to jump in and interrupt and ask one side or the other a question just to kind of keep things moving But in general, it's really just going to be a freestyle conversation And what we want to do to start out though is we're going to let Pastor McMurtry start out just by giving us on the back of a postage stamp Like whatever he thinks is the best argument for his version of where the temple was supposedly located So just give us a few minutes of your best argument and then Pastor Shelley you can just respond to that however you want and we'll just see where this thing goes Sounds good Well first off I'm very excited about having this conversation, I've been looking forward to it all day or for the last few hours And so I appreciate Pastor Anderson moderating it and Pastor Shelley allowing me to do this I love, I think we're going to have a good conversation and I think this is going to be fair and impartial and we're going to get somewhere I'm convinced of that and I'm excited about it And so basically when it comes to figuring out where the temple was, obviously it's not something where we can just look at the Bible Because we have to figure out where those places are that the Bible speaks of today And so we have to use history, we have to use archaeology and things like that in order to figure this out And so when it comes to the traditional temple mount location, I don't believe that there is any consistent history I think there's a lot of tradition but not history, I don't think there's any good archaeological evidence And mainly my big thing is if they are right about the traditional temple mount location then they are wrong about almost everything else that they will point you to in Jerusalem today And so I'm just comparing what the archaeologists are saying, I'm comparing what the historians are saying and I'm comparing it with what I'm seeing in the Bible And whenever we start talking about the temple mount being at the traditional spot, it doesn't make sense If you have it over in the city of David, all of a sudden things start making sense This is why, again, I know we get emotional about these things, kind of foolish, but I don't care if people disagree with me on this But at the same time, I am very interested, I've been interested in this subject for years, I love to talk about it But it's one that people get emotional over and I feel like many of the arguments that people are throwing at me And things that people are saying against this position show a lack of understanding of many things And it's like, hey, I think if we actually talked about this, you would understand things differently So we'll see if that happens tonight, I think it will, and I'm excited about it I want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting your opening statement here, your opening thoughts But it seemed like you initially said that we want to go beyond the Bible a little bit, that we can't just only look at the Bible But then you said that history itself is not very reliable and vague, and that archaeology is also unreliable So it just seemed a little bit contradictory, like if we're going beyond the Bible but we can't trust history or archaeology Then what are we going beyond the Bible to actually put any confidence in? Right, so maybe I wasn't clear enough on this, but it's which archaeologists are we listening to, which historians are we listening to Because the Bible does not give us latitude and longitude, and so we look at what the scriptures say And then we are comparing it with what we are seeing today And obviously the Bible is infallible, and for sure, you know, the temple was on Mount Moriah, it was built on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite That's what the Bible teaches, the question is, where is Mount Moriah? In order to figure that out, we've got to rely on historians, we have to rely on archaeologists But not only where is Mount Moriah, where is the city of David? Where is the Pool of Siloam? Where is Caiaphas' house? Where is the Kidron Valley and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom? And all these places that I just named, they will tell you where they are Well the problem is, if we start comparing what the scriptures say about all these locations Then all those other places don't fit with the Temple Mount being in the traditional spot So yeah, obviously the Bible comes first, if something contradicts the Bible, we throw it out But we do have to rely on history and archaeology to a certain extent to figure out the modern location Okay, I also don't want to necessarily misrepresent your position So a lot of the information I've learned about your theory or your view of the facts is also coming from other people like Robert Cornuke Is there any major discrepancies between Robert Cornuke's position or what he puts forth in let's say this book The Temple And what your position is that you're aware of? Not that I know of, I definitely learned a lot of stuff from him I've not watched all of his stuff, I've read this book Temple that he wrote But I read this book before I went over there And so honestly, I didn't retain a lot of it and I kind of thought it was kind of boring because I didn't get it I have this other book called Gotha that I read after going there And I absolutely loved that book reading it just because I knew exactly what he's talking about as I read it So it was a lot more interesting to me because it would be kind of like if I wrote a story about the location of Steadfast Baptist Church I've never been there but I write a bunch of stuff, people who've never been there, they could read it and it's like what he's saying makes sense and adds up But if somebody's actually been there and I'm saying your church is up on a hill when it isn't and it's facing west when it isn't or something like that Then they're going to be all confused But somebody who has been there and if somebody's writing about who has been there, they're going to retain a lot more things And so I've always been interested in reading things about these places I'm familiar with That was one of the reasons I loved the Left Behind books in my younger days because it talked a lot about the locations in Jerusalem They even talked about the King David Hotel that I had stayed at and they were very detailed in their writing about it And I enjoyed it so much more because I was familiar with the place If you're not familiar with the place, it's very hard to retain a lot of the things that you read Real quick, I just want to jump in here real quick because I did ask you to give your best argument And you kind of gave us an overview of your philosophy of how to approach the subject Give us an actual argument, like give us an argument Alright, I would say one of my favorite arguments is probably the Valley of the Son of Hinnom argument Let me find my notes on that In Jeremiah, let's see if I can find it I think I got the wrong notes up here But in Jeremiah it talks about the East Gate which is outside the Valley of the Son of Hinnom It talks about, and so right there, obviously, I'm looking at, I have to appeal to history and archaeology But the archaeologists are all telling us that the Valley of the Son of Hinnom is over, almost past where the city of David is If I can get my screen share up here, let me try to get this Make sure I'm doing this right, let me get this on here So if we zoom out a little bit, right up here is the traditional spot Over in this area down here is the city of David And way back in this area is the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, way back here And the valley kind of comes around through here They will tell you over there, this is the Valley of the Son of Hinnom Well Jeremiah says the Valley of the Son of Hinnom is outside the East Gate It also talks about in Nehemiah, let me go to the scriptures on this Let me take the screen share off Sorry I've got a million windows open right now In Nehemiah 3.15 it says But the gate of the fountain repaired, Shallon the son of Colhosa the ruler of the part of the Mizpah He built it and covered it and set the doors thereof, the locks thereof and the bars thereof And the wall of the pool of Siloah by the king's garden and under the stairs that go down from the city of David So this is when they're rebuilding the temple and they are repairing the walls of the temple And it's mentioning all the different walls and different details and it mentions the pool of Siloah And it mentions the stairs that go down from it from the city of David It mentions here in verse 16 Under the place over against the sepulchres of David and to the pool that was made under the house of the mighty And then if you jump down to verse 20 it says From the turning of the wall unto the door of the house of Eliashib the high priest So we've seen the pool of Siloam, we've seen the house of the high priest, we've seen the sepulchres of David And then over here in verse 29 And I didn't read the verse before of that but it talks about the water And so all these things that it's mentioning here They will tell you today over in Israel that they're all over here in the city of David You've got the tomb of David that's up in this area somewhere You have the pool of Siloam which is back here I believe in this area over here You've got over here on the east which is in my opinion Roughly where the temple would have been facing to the east That's where you have the Gihon Springs and they're mentioning the water So there's three or four different things that Nehemiah mentions When they're rebuilding the walls and the things of the temple Oian Caiaphas' house That are all in the city of David and it also mentions the east gate specifically And they will tell you all these things are over here So again whenever I'm reading the Bible I'm seeing the temple, I'm seeing the pools All these other places that you can visit over in Jerusalem I'm seeing them all over the city of David And when you go over there and they tell you yeah this is the pool of Siloam Yes this is the Gihon Springs, this is Caiaphas' house, this is the tomb of David All these things over in the city of David and then you mention to them Isn't this where the Bible indicates that the temple was? And they're like no it's over up to the north And that absolutely doesn't make sense And so the thing is they could be wrong about the tomb of David They could be wrong about the value of the son of Hinnom They could be wrong about all these different things That's very true but that's where the Gihon Springs and Hezekiah's tunnel comes in That right there, that's going to be very difficult to mistake And that right there is also in the city of David And I don't think I need to show the scriptures that reference that So again I'm not just thinking only about the Temple Mount I'm thinking about all of these places that the Bible references That they are telling you over there today are in the city of David And this might be another subject we get into later But obviously not everyone over there agrees with a lot of these different locations The Jews have their version of where some things took place The Christians have their versions of where some things took place The Muslims have their versions of where some things took place And so to me, the Valley of the Son of Hinnom It just makes a lot of sense with what I'm reading in the scriptures and all those places around it And it specifically is said in the Bible that it is outside the entry of the East Gate I don't know if you can still see my screen But nobody claims the valley in front of the traditional Temple Mount is the Valley of the Son of Hinnom Nobody does Now if they're right about the temple location being over there Then that would be the Valley of the Son of Hinnom according to the Bible Alright so Pastor McMurtry you've had the floor for about 12, 13 minutes or whatever So let's toss it over to Pastor Shelley and get his response to some of this Yeah you can bring it back to his, instead of the map you can just go back to him I want to also see if I can pull up my screen for a second too And I just did a quick search because I've honestly never heard this argument until you just made it But I think that this map also kind of is similar to what Pastor McMurtry had alluded to Is that the Valley of the Son of Hinnom is kind of in this south region here I don't want to necessarily completely misrepresent their position But from my understanding they would believe that their version of the temple is kind of over here Where the Gihon Spring is, somewhere generally over here Obviously we're thinking it's the Temple Mount In both cases I would say that the East Gate of a temple location doesn't seem to really correspond to I'm going to get rid of that Mark But it doesn't really necessarily seem to correspond to the Valley of Hinnom just directly So I don't see that that being a strong point for either side And I also don't know if the East Gate is for sure referring to the temple It doesn't bring up the temple in Jeremiah chapter 19 or in the preceding chapter Very likely could be referring to the temple's East Gate Perhaps that's just the way in which you would go to that location People would walk through the Kidron Valley down into the Valley of Hinnom, I'm not sure But I would address, to me, the strongest point in favor of the Temple Mount would be Matthew 24 Which says that there shall not be one stone left upon another It says, I'm going to read it verbatim, but it says there shall not be left here one stone upon another That shall not be thrown down And from our position, it's pretty easy to identify the Temple Mount as the location upon which things were actually thrown down And there has been large stones excavated near the western wall in the southern portion That I believe would be a fulfillment of this Christ-rejecting Jews also would say, hey, these are the stones that fulfilled Jesus Christ's prophecy from Matthew 24 in 70 AD When the Romans came and threw the stones of the temple complex down off of the Temple Mount People that have an alternative theory, I'm always wondering, what were the stones thrown off of? What were they thrown down from? And so I'm just kind of curious about that question Additionally, the Bible tells us that the house of the Lord was built on Mount Moriah If we go by Biblical names that are known today, that area where the Temple Mount is is known as Mount Moriah So it seems to at least match if that's the correct terminology 2 Chronicles 5 also says whenever they took the Ark of God and moved it, that they moved it out of the city of David In 2 Chronicles 5, you can go back to my screen if you want because I'm putting up the verses It says specifically that when they assembled everybody after Solomon had finished the house of the Lord It says to bring up the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion So that seems to suggest that the temple was outside of the city of David It was taken out of into the new temple that was constructed Mark 13, 3 says that the temple right here, it says sat upon the Mount of Olives over against the temple The Bible tells us that the temple is against or next to the Mount of Olives I think I actually have a picture Here's a picture of a Temple Mount location And you can see the Mount of Olives and how they're pretty much over against one another At least according to this map, which again would to me suggest exactly what the Bible said in Mark 13 I also have a quote from Josephus who describes Jerusalem's city It says the city was built upon two hills And when you kind of just scroll down to the rather part of this particular quote He tells you, in those times when the Asmanaeans reigned, they filled up that valley with earth And had mind to join the city to the temple So he describes the city of Jerusalem is built on two hills There's a valley in between And they filled it in with dirt And it's the Tryponian Valley And you can actually see from this picture I don't know if I can zoom in a little bit more It might be easier to see but You have Mount Moriah here And you have the Tyropion Valley here Which is separating the city of David Which would have been down here in this location With the Ophel and the Temple Mount location over here Which is pretty much matching the exact geographic location That Josephus describes in his description of the city of Jerusalem Additionally, according to the Mishnah In Midat 2.1 It tells us that the original foundation by Solomon was 500 by 500 cubits Or that's been estimated to be 861 feet by 861 feet Which then also matches Basically the archaeological evidence Of that original Temple Mount structure I could show videos of that But there's another one where there's a picture That shows essentially the Ophel connecting to I think I have a picture of this one, maybe I don't No, I don't have a picture up on this one But another quote of Josephus says that The temple is joined at the eastern cloister Of the Ophel or the Ophlos Which matches again exactly that And I've seen different models of Cornuks version of the Temple But one of us kind of puts it jutted out Over across the Gihon Spring Which would make that eastern cloister of the Temple not connected to Or touching the Ophel And so I think that pretty much everything from these quotes of Josephus From the Bible, from the archaeology That it seems to me that the Temple Mount matches everything I've never considered Jeremiah 19 But I just don't really see your argument I'll pass it back for his counter Yeah, so Jeremiah 19 says And go forth into the valley of the son of Hinnom Which is by the entry of the east gate And proclaim they are the words that I tell thee And there are many references to the east gate And if you look up the references to the east gate It's always in reference to the temple The valley of the son of Hinnom 2 It was, it was something that was just kind of You know, if you read all the stories associated with it That's where some of the greatest wickedness took place So there's many references to the valley of the son of Hinnom When you read those, kind of compare them with east gate passages It's clear it's always talking about the same place In the eastern gate But as far as like what you did on there When you were just kind of The way Robert Cornuks explains it It's like when you're surveying something You have to have a reference point And the problem is The traditional temple mount, that is the reference point So we know the Mount of Olives is east of the temple Well the thing is the mountain, it goes across Over east of where we think it is too But they would put the main part, you know Directly east of there too Based on the assumption that that's the right spot When they see the stones that are down there Kind of southwest of where the traditional temple mount is You know, you see those stones there Well, we know the temple is here These must be from the temple Problem with that is too, historically We see reference to how they took some of the stones of the temple Because the Bible talks about how they were large, costly stones And they used them in other buildings And which greatly bothered the Jews The stones from their holy sacred temple Is being used for these pagan buildings and things So, you know, what happened to a lot of those stones It's hard to say They could have been moved around A lot of things have been built And tore down over the centuries And so, to me, the best survey spot Or, you know, the reference point Is that Gihon Springs But that wasn't discovered until the late 1800s And that's when they started calling that area the City of David That changed everything But tradition always trumps everything with the Jews And so there's, you know, these stones that they find in these places You know, they refer to them as that Simply because, in their minds, we know that's where the temple was But it doesn't necessarily prove it The other thing that you brought up Oh, you also brought up the size too That they say doesn't fit Now, there's a couple easy ways to explain that One, you referenced the Mishnah Which was written several hundred years Or it was written long after 70 AD And people often refer to Say Josephus backed that up Josephus never said It was the 500 by 500 cubits That's something that came long after And people are like, well, that matches With the traditional spot But, again, that's because people assume That it was that size Because they're assuming that was the spot And one of the very frustrating things for me When I started doing this Because the way I found out about this Was through Pastor Joe Major He preaches sermon about it I'm like, well, in the world I had done slideshow things in our church before Boring people to tears about the Temple Mount location I went with the traditional spot I started looking at it And when you start tracing the sources of history You know what you end up finding out? There are huge gaps in the history That don't make a lot of sense And in reality, the traditional spot I think when that clearly became established As the place historically It was about 1099 During the Crusades If you look at history of the Crusades That's kind of when it became Are you saying the Temple Mount? I'm just making sure I'm clear Okay Yeah, that's when it became known as the Temple Mount I think it was after the first Crusade When the Crusaders took it over And so since then For the last 900 years People have believed That that was the Temple Mount But when you go back before that History is super fuzzy There's lots of gaps There's lots of dead spots And it's filled in by tradition So when was the Dome of the Rock built? It was in Was it the 500s or 600s I think? It's like the late 600s, right? So the Muslims Do you think they built the Dome of the Rock On a Roman fortress just for fun? They didn't think that was what the Temple was either? I think they just did Because it was a good spot to do it It was a well preserved area As stated in Josephus It was written about Masada The Bordeaux pilgrim Everybody wrote about After the AD 70 destruction That was all that was left Was the Roman fortress Okay so You bring this up I think In the film that you guys were working on About Hadrian built The temples of Jupiter On the temple Where did he build that exactly? Probably in the city of David On what exactly? Again that's one of those areas too We've got dead spots in history Because according to I'm trying to remember the source I want to stay on that point for a second You believe that the temple mount location Whatever it was Let's just say I'm using that word Let's just say the foundation of the temple Was completely eradicated In 70 AD true? Is that accurate? I think it mostly was But according to history Even I think there might More was removed in 132 After the Bar Kokhba revolt That's when there was a I think Robert Cornuke Makes a pretty strong claim He says that Every single stone Every single rock Was totally eradicated Totally just destroyed Do you agree with that claim? I don't know for sure It depends Because Jesus said There wouldn't be one stone left upon another And he wasn't just referring to The holy place The Bible says they saw They were looking at the buildings Of the temple And the entire complex Was considered part of the temple The eastern and western walls All those walls around it Everything within those walls Was considered the temple And there were buildings And there were rooms That were in those walls In those outer walls that were there And so When I read Matthew 24 And I see Jesus And the disciples looking at the buildings Of the temple And him saying There's not going to be one stone left upon another I think that is in reference to All of it So what were they thrown down from? Do you think they were thrown down? The rocks were thrown down? What were they thrown down from exactly? Was there a temple mount structure Or a foundation Underneath this temple complex? In your view? Yeah I think so So for example When they rebuilt the temple During Ezra and Nehemiah's day It mentions them laying a foundation Again And the way they built the cities Back then They would always build over The previous structures That were there And so I think there's Stuff like temple zero I think that was something That they would have built over Personally Okay well temple zero I think Cornuke says that temple zero Is Solomon's temple No In fact we played a clip of him saying that In his temple documentary He said I believe this is Solomon's temple Is that something that you agree with? I think that was from A video he did several years ago I saw that a long time ago Before I went to Israel But when we were over there I don't think that he Believes that Melchizedek's temple Was where Solomon's temple Was exactly He might but I I don't remember him saying that If my memory serves me correctly He thought that's probably where They had the tabernacle Where they anointed Solomon To be king Well he says like direct quote I believe this is Solomon's temple Well no he might have believed that at one time I don't think he does anymore Is that something you believe? No So what is Melchizedek's temple? When I say I believe I think This is me believing What the archaeologists are saying And the archaeologists are telling me There was a temple there It goes back to Melchizedek's time When I'm reading the Bible And I'm seeing David Put a tabernacle there in the city of David Where they had put the Ark of the Covenant And then when I see them Take the Ark of the Covenant out of The city of David Which that was the other thing I was wanting to get to And then I personally believe They probably If there was already Some kind of temple structure there You know or platform whatever That they probably would have used that Same thing in David's day I'm just assuming that But then when they built the temple That was clearly in a different spot And so in that part too Where it says 1 Kings 8 one When it says they might bring up the Ark of the Covenant They brought out of the city of David Which is Zion In my brain I'm picturing them taking it from The Temple zero In my brain that's what I'm picturing And then taking it out of the city of David Probably do some big open area Because they're about to slaughter A multitude of animals That cannot be numbered And notice where they do that It says in verse 3 And they brought up the Ark of the Lord And the tabernacle And the tabernacle of the congregation And all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle Even those that the priests and Levites bring up And King Solomon and all the congregation Of Israel that were assembled unto him Were with him Before the Ark Sacrificing sheep and oxen that could not be told Nor numbered for multitude I believe they did this feast Where they sacrificed this multitude of animals Outside the city of David After they sacrificed all these animals Before the Ark And the priests brought in the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord Unto his place Into the oracle of the house of God To the most holy place And so In my brain I'm seeing them taking it from Temple zero putting it in Solomon's temple In my brain So you're saying the Ark of the Covenant I just want to make sure I'm understanding You're saying the Ark of the Covenant was in Temple zero And then they moved it Into the new temple that's nearby Let's say Well I'll say for sure It was in a tabernacle that David pitched Wherever that was And then it went into Solomon's temple So in my opinion Assuming the archaeologists are right Assuming Robert Cornuch is right They took the Ark Out of Temple zero They took it out of the city of David They had their feast where they sacrificed all their animals And then they put the Ark Into the temple which I think would also be In the city of David They could have went back into the city of David And this Temple zero is also I guess described as By Eli Shachron as Melchizedek's temple Is that something you believe? I like to think that it is And the reason for that Is again Assuming they're right I'm not an archaeologist Also When Abraham met Melchizedek They met him in the Valley of Shavah Which is in the Kingsdale That's the way it's stated Obviously it wasn't named Jerusalem back then If you search up the Kingsdale When Absalom died He put up a pillar And it specifically says that it was put in the Kingsdale Well not far from where Temple zero is Absalom's pillar Absalom's pillar According to archaeologists dates Several hundred years after Absalom But many people believe It got modified Hundreds of years later But that place is also associated with Absalom So according to the scriptures If the archaeologists are right about the Kingsdale If they're right about Absalom's pillar Then that would be the very general area Where the Bible says Melchizedek was Jerusalem If this is in fact Where there was a temple If this is in fact The Valley of Shavah And the Kingsdale To me that would be Where Melchizedek did his thing How do you write the idea? I want to jump in here For a minute The way we've been doing this Pastor McMurtry is doing 90% of the talking And you're kind of challenging him And asking him questions And kind of guiding His speech Let's kind of do a role reversal So why don't you take over for a while Pastor Shelley And why don't you present your views and your arguments And you can pick up right where you left off I'm not saying to change the subject or anything But why don't you start doing 90% of the talking And then Pastor McMurtry Why don't you jump in every once in a while With a question and challenge I'm kind of the same way Switch roles here One thing I would say That I would like to hear a reconciliation on Is it sounds like The Kidron Valley That you're describing here Is where you would agree The Gihon Spring is How do you reconcile that with the fact that It's built on Mount Moriah And then again specifically We describe Mount Moriah as being Now where the Temple Mount is At least in modern understanding And it feels like a little bit of cherry picking of Well the Kidron Valley is accurate And that's what they say But Mount Moriah is now Magically not accurate Or how do we get to pick and choose which Geographical locations are accurate According to modern history and which ones are not I of course would admit that it's possible For names or places or things To get mixed up or be potentially wrong But I'm not sure why Some are or some aren't or how we're making That decision It seems just preposterous to me To believe that The Ark of the Covenant was in Temple Zero It seems like Temple Zero is just kind of a Like almost a mecha To this theory of just everything happened In that specific location and it kind of It seems wild to me specifically Additionally You know I don't see where Hadrian is building These temple locations I'm sorry Hadrian is building the Temple to Jupiter If you're taking Cornuks view He's saying that everything's eradicated Completely gone And according to y'all's view This was built on the Gihon Spring That makes it seem like Hadrian would have to build Temple on top of An act of moving spring I don't know how he did that I don't know how that would even make sense Additionally there is quotes About Hadrian building on the temple From a couple older historic Sources Cassius Dio writes this was in The third century He says at Jerusalem Hadrian Founded a city in a place of the one Which had been razed to the ground naming it Aaliyah Capitolina And on the side of the temple of the god He razed a new temple to Jupiter And according to Grock it says this suggests Jupiter temple was built directly on the temple mount Additionally Eusebius In the fourth century In Rome also echo this Claiming that Hadrian had placed a Jupiter temple on the temple site Alongside statues of himself And other deities to romanize the area To me it makes perfect sense to believe You know all these sources are not Inaccurate And that modern history is not Unaccurate in describing the fact that The temple mount was laid bare Hadrian builds his temples of Jupiter on it Later the Muslims come and build the dome On top of it then later you have Crusades which I find That it's kind of it's kind of weird Or misleading to say that Now they discovered the temple mount is The true location when it seems pretty Clear that Hadrian and The Muslims Both were trying to desecrate This particular holy site which is Described as Mount Moriah Again the archaeological evidence Of the sifting project shows All kinds of different artifacts having been Found on the temple mount Things that certain pottery Coins different stuff that dates back To the time of David I'm not really understanding why that would exist With the Roman fortress Or the fortress Antonia Or how that could possibly even make sense To me all archaeologists Publicly state that the temple mount Is the temple You know Eli Shukron which is in one of the films You've been made he said publicly Not that long ago that the temple is on the temple mount There's another expert I think it was interviewed for your film Joseph Good He is dedicated 40 years Of studying the temple project And he adamantly states that the city of David theory makes no sense holds no water Doesn't make any sense with math What so ever It seems like there's multiple experts That are publicly disagreeing with You know how they're being represented In your film I'm kind of just curious Why would you want to Introduce characters into your film That totally disagree with the premise When that's not made obvious by the film Such as like JVC James White's in New World or Bible versions But we know that guy doesn't believe in King James onlyism But Joseph Good is not portrayed as Someone that disagrees with your view Yet he strongly disagrees With your theory Why would you include someone like that in the film? Right because These guys are the experts of these Locations and everything That they are telling us about these Locations should be indicating To us that this is where the temple Was and it was Crazy listening to Elie Shukran tell us all these Details about it and it's just Like all's on here and okay Then this is where the temple was this is where the temple was And then you ask them no and it's because They'll be done for if they Were to say that because it's such a Political issue as well But you can't talk about temple zero without Talking about Elie Shukran he's the guy who discovered It he's the expert on it And he's found some interesting Things over there too he found a Bell they said they believe came From a priest's garment that The Bible refers to which is kind of Interesting but so All these all these Other locations get all the Archaeologists I get I know what they're all saying About the temple mount I know they're all Agreeing with that the problem is All the other places That they also agree About should be telling Us that the temple location Is wrong so we're Picking what we want to believe them on I'm believing Them on everything else And not the temple So Elie Shukran can't publicly admit this Or he could be lose Maybe his credibility or something Then does this book Say that Elie Shukran secretly Agrees with Y'all's theory and denies the temple mount location I don't think so I don't remember I don't know I didn't know Elie Shukran when I read that Okay well I will just say that The book multiple Times tells us that Elie Shukran secretly Agrees would that Possibly threaten this credibility I mean if he's so afraid of getting caught Why would you publish it in a book if it's It's so important for him to not Hear that information We'd have to ask Robert Cornuke that Here's another question I did talk to a tour guide over there For the wailing Wall tours tunnel tours And yeah he said They go to schools That train them to do These things and they have To tell them What the official story is On all these places they will be toast They will not have a job Anymore if they were to go Against the temple mount narrative That's just a fact But if he just tells a bunch of kids he could lose his license But if it's in a book published for everybody to read He wouldn't Did Elie Shukran write that? Is that the Robert Cornuke book? I mean Robert Cornuke's giving all kinds of quotes Of Elie Shukran It would have to make news It would have to stir things up Instead of just talking about it Maybe it would be helpful to read the actual quotes Yeah I put it in our show Earlier too But I just want to say It doesn't matter if He says it in this book or not It's Robert Cornuke's opinion But I'm just kind of curious about that narrative We have Dr. Fink Also asking him this Why would Cornuke get this information from Elie Shukran But other people Interested in this when they ask him directly Does he give a different answer? Why is he giving Dr. Fink a different answer? They seemed like they were pretty close Okay Elie Shukran and Robert Cornuke They seemed to get along What about Joseph Goode? Joseph Goode has not ever said anything Contrary to the fact that he believes that the temple Which one is he? I forgot Is he the blonde guy? He's an older guy Just says temple expert I don't know. I don't even know who that is Well I would be interested Also you kind of made some other comments about Temple Zero In maybe another video that I recently did But you made a comment about How you believe Temple Zero Is actually where Job In Job chapter 1 Where the sons of God and Satan Presented themselves before the Lord Do you still believe that? It's my It's speculation It's my opinion I think it. I wouldn't fight anybody over it And here's the basis Here is the point Didn't you say in the same video That it's end of story Absolutely true That you know that happened on earth though As far as just Job 1 Happening on earth It is my very strong opinion That it happened on earth For sure With it being there That is if One that is in fact Melchizedek's temple And even then I don't know that Is the only place where people Where there was a temple Before the children of Israel Got that area I'm just saying there's no other Place in the Bible That specifically mentions There being any kind of temple Or similar practices But when we read what the New Testament says About Melchizedek when we see Abraham giving tithes to him there in Salem I'm just saying it seems like The most likely spot But it's speculation And I do this often on my program Where whenever there is a Controversial subject I like to point out often That it's not all There's certain things that are not clear in Scripture They are speculation But often we all end up agreeing In our speculation and they become Sound doctrine I always try to categorize my speculations And that is that is a Speculation just as Okay but it's not a speculation that you believe Job 1 happened on earth And you know You made it clear like you believe this dogmatically I'm interested Is there a single person That you ever had teach this to you Because I've never heard that view ever And I'm just curious did you learn this yourself Or did someone else teach you that I learned it myself Have you ever seen or heard Anybody else have that position before I mean it's one of those Vague or you know Confusing parts of the Bible I've heard you know I've not heard much teaching on it at all Except usually we just argue about Who the sons of God were That's the argument most people have And so my Thing that I did of saying I believe it was there Mainly was because I knew It would blow people's minds Because they think it's in heaven And it was speculation I was very clear that this is speculation What speculation It was at temple zero But it was my way of doing that to show It's speculation that's even in heaven There's nothing in the text that clearly indicates in heaven You think it's in heaven But then I proceeded on there And I can do it now if you want To show biblical precedent Or why we should think it's on earth Because I can show you the exact same language Being used In the scriptures in temple practices Temple language Unfortunately it's kind of a forgotten Language amongst a lot of Christians Even though it's right there in the Bible Because thankfully we've never needed any of those things You know we have everything That is Everything that was accomplished through the things of the temple Has been accomplished already For us through Christ so we don't even think about that stuff But it was a big deal that the Bible talks A lot about and we do see Places in the Bible where people Would on earth present themselves Before the Lord Typically before the door of a congregation More specifically It's usually just wherever the presence of the Lord was And we see it in different places And so In my opinion If that is in fact where Melchizedek's Temple was I believe that he would have been a contemporary With Job And so it seems like a likely spot But it could have been somewhere in the land of us And I say that on my podcast too It could have been somewhere else But I like to think it was there And I can't think of another place in the planet That I would guess I get it You also said and I would Admit that you said this was speculative Or just kind of your personal opinion But you suggested that Christ was a pre-incarnate Melchizedek And I think a lot of people have that view And I'm not necessarily going to attack that view But you then proceeded to state That you believe that Melchizedek As a pre-incarnate Christ Was performing sacrifices from Abraham Until He passed it over to the children of Israel And then later they Had to pass it back Is that fair that you said that? Do you still believe that? It's very possible that assuming Assuming That there's always been A high priest It seems to make sense that there's Always been a high priest We for sure have had Jesus as a high priest For the last 2000 years Before that we had the order of Aaron As high priest And before that we do see Melchizedek who is described as having The beginning of days or end of life However I think there's ways you can Interpret that too to make it not Jesus It is my I say this often too It is my position that Melchizedek Is Jesus But I'm not dogmatic on that I can If you like we can talk about Hebrews I could show you some things that Hebrew Says that I don't know for sure how to Interpret it and so There are a couple Of strong possibilities For how that could be But that is assuming that there needed To always be a high priest On earth I won't dogmatically But there had to be I'm just saying we do know there was one And so We also see Even going all the way back to Cain and Abel That what are they doing They're offering sacrifices to the Lord And we see then That Cain Flees from the presence of the Lord I don't want to misrepresent you But when you say that Cain is fleeing From the presence of the Lord Are you saying that there was an actual Temple or tabernacle there With Jesus Christ As a pre-incarnate Melchizedek There and that he's fleeing from his Physical presence Is that what you're saying? Maybe because it specifically Tells us where he went and that it was From the presence of the Lord and we do see In the Bible that There's always been a place In a lot of the Bible history There was a place where God's presence was In the house of God and there seems To be strong indications That there were places like that even before The law was given What about Adam and Eve? Do you think they were fleeing From a physical tabernacle in the Garden of Eden? I believe they got banished From a physical garden where the presence of the Lord was Right I'm just asking I think the building would have come Later Who built that? The tabernacle? Adam? That'd be my guess I don't know If there was a physical tabernacle There and Jesus is offering sacrifices What would have happened during the flood? Well That's the thing He could have left Here's what I don't know either When it comes to Melchizedek To me there's many possibilities If we were to go through Hebrews chapter 7 Because it's like did he need To be around all the time? Was it just a one time thing? I personally think it's very possible That Melchizedek Was just In reality this kind of very Mysterious character on purpose That happened to show up in the days of Abraham To set a precedent For Israel So they would understand How there could be A high priest that wasn't from Levi Because in Hebrews he's trying to explain how Jesus Could in fact be a high priest Even though he's not from the tribe of Levi Because it was prophesied to be a priest After the order of Melchizedek Let's go back and look at how great this man was Abraham tied to him That man blessed Abraham And the less is blessed the better And so if this Melchizedek was greater Than Abraham And he's not from the tribe of Judah He doesn't have beginning of days in life or anything like that You know then Jesus Can actually be And this is another thing too If it was a man I don't believe he lived forever either Because the Bible specifically says There's an order of Melchizedek And there's an order of Aaron It could be when it says having either Mother or father descent That the high priest was somebody That God handpicked And that name Melchizedek Could have been more of a title Because the Bible says in Hebrews It's interpreted king of righteousness So maybe there were multiple Kings of righteousness I don't know It's all speculation Again just because I'm teasing out Your theory here If the children of Israel and Egypt for about 430 years You're placing A pre-incarnate Christ In this Jebusite fortress Melchizedek's temple Why is it that Canaan is just so bad And that they're just All these sodomites and incest And all this crazy stuff If you have Jesus as a king Over the city of Jebus Or the pre-early Jerusalem How would that even make sense? I mean the reality is Again I don't know how long He was there I don't know when Jebus went bad I do know that he was A king of Salem I heard there was some reference to me talking about Him ruling and reigning That's what kings do He was a king of Salem I don't think when it got Wicked that he was there But it is It's one of those Mysterious things I mean Is it your position that Melchizedek was not Jesus? Well I would say When it comes to the Melchizedek Position I think there's two pretty Viable options I think just like all the other Theophanies he's just in and out Where he just basically appears And then is out Or the other alternative is that it's just a random guy That happens to be the King of Salem and is a priest at that time And because the text Itself doesn't give us a Genealogy or doesn't tell us who his mom and dad are Then you could interpret Hebrews as saying well the reason why It says without father and mother is just because The text doesn't tell us But of course Christ himself doesn't have it Because Christ is God and so Christ Is not a created being and so he's Made like unto the son of God in the text Even though he's not literally like the son of God Or perhaps like you said it's the Pre-incarnate Christ I guess I just find it Extremely insane To believe that Jesus Christ was On the earth performing sacrifices You know from the time Of Abraham up unto the children of Israel Because for me like I just feel like you're number one You're pretty much undermining The whole point of Jesus Christ ruling And reigning the millennial reign Additionally there's nothing in the text That even suggests that whatsoever Jesus Christ would have Essentially had to kind of fail I don't know why the tabernacle Would have not been Just modeled after the tabernacle that was there But was actually modeled after The tabernacle that was in heaven If that was true Additionally I don't understand why the Canaanites Would have not been kept in check Because Leviticus 20 is pretty clear That if anybody is just hiding their eyes And not taking people to task On the sins mentioned in Leviticus chapter Number 20 such as child sacrifice To Moloch obviously we're Really familiar with sodomites and incest And all these other crazy things that they were doing there Then God was going to hold that person Accountable well I would assume the king would be held Accountable if those actions are being Performed in his city and in his area It kind of just seems like it makes no sense Obviously Jesus Christ shows up in Sodom and Gomorrah At least from afar to kind of see But I mean immediately toasts the entire city He can't put up with that he doesn't just tolerate That kind of nonsense and you know The Bible does pretty much indicate From Psalm 2 and other chapters In Hebrews and 1 Corinthians That Christ will reign but he hasn't Reigned on the earth physically yet That that's a coming future Thing that's going to happen and when he does It's going to be a time of peace and prosperity and everybody all the nations Are going to be drawn unto him I guess you know even when Jesus Christ was On the earth as soon as he's known he's drawing Everybody to him he's drawing all the Gentiles Unto him and he kind of has to Keep on a DL like he can't He has to tell me like don't tell him where I'm at and stuff I think if Jesus was on the earth people Would know about that figure that out Want to go see him like it just Seems preposterous to me to believe That Jesus Christ would have been Ruling and reigning In Jerusalem while Abraham And the children of Israel hanging out in Egypt And all this other stuff To me it just seems insane Well I mean you know insane is a strong Word what's insane is thinking that he is There as a priest and he's not offering Sacrifices so again if you Want to argue about how long he did It okay it's like when's it not insane 10 years 20 years 100 years You know it's like he Was a priest therefore you No sacrifice involved Abraham's tithing To him he was a king So he's obviously ruling and reigning over a city But when Jesus comes he Is on earth he's there for a purpose When he came 2000 Years ago I mean the people killed him During that time which was why he came If he is on earth as Melchizedek He's not there to rule and reign Like he's going to in the millennial reign That's what he's that's why He's coming next if he's There then if that is in fact Jesus He's there to be a Priest because Back before the cross People needed priests and we Do we see the priest being used In You know in After the time of Moses and we see A priest even before Moses did they always Have to have a priest I don't know For sure it just it kind of makes Sense we know for sure That they've had a priest ever since Mount Sinai until Now and so it just kind of Makes sense there might have been somebody On earth that God always had Whether it was Jesus or whether it was a man Offering up sacrifices You know for those who were believers Because there were always sons of God There were always believers And so I Yeah I don't think it's I don't think it's That weird and I mean I think it's insane and blasphemous and Just crazy okay but why Would that be blasphemous why Well again because you you would have To again you didn't necessarily say these Things but i'm just saying based on that position It seems logical it seems logical That you'd have to then assume that Jesus Christ failed in a sense because He has to pass back over this Area of land unto Moses and Why why would it be passed back over We never see it being passed back over in the New testament when he's ruling and reigning when he rules and reigns He he defeats death And you have the thousand years of Perfect peace perfect harmony perfect Succession and then it goes straight Into just basically the new heavens and the new Earth you don't have this like Failure period which again that's what Would be suggested by handing it over To Moses like oh well It didn't go well or I wasn't Doing it right or something Okay why God wanted to give it to man Said it might have been a man it might have God was trying to what we're seeing in Genesis is we're seeing man Keep going bad and God is going to choose A nation and God ends up choosing Abraham God wants to Turn these things over to man And so what God did God gave Those things to Israel not because of Failure this was his plan this is What he wanted to do it's only a failure If Melchizedek is the priest And it's God's intention for him To continue being that priest and never Have to turn it over to anybody else There's an I've never said that was a plan nothing In the scriptures indicates that so there There's no failure involved you know If if that is a pre-incarnate Christ and he is on Earth During that time it is For a very specific purpose It's not to fulfill the millennial Promises and prophecies That's going to happen in the future The Bible says that the land of Canaan was wicked and God was just Waiting to destroy it until Their wickedness had come to a full point So there's not like this there's not like The ebb and flow of good and bad it's just Horrible wicked and then just gets Way worse I mean we even see Abraham When Abraham's in the land We have Lot leaving him And then we have Sodom and Gomorrah Which is obviously just a horrible One of the worst places ever So I don't I don't see Like how you could argue that Jesus Christ is being successful At any point from Melchizedek Unto Mount Sinai since that Land and that whole area is just A complete train wreck Biblically speaking that would make Christ Just basically a failure as a leader Based on the fruit of that Land of Canaan To me again it's blasphemous again To think that the Lord Jesus Christ Already ruled and reigned because How is that any different than the Preterist view today Which would say oh all of those things have already Happened Christ already ruled and reigned and now We're entered into some you know Other type of time of history You know to suggest that Christ already Ruled and reign in the past Is in my view a little bit similar To what preterists are doing today Where they're saying oh yeah we've already entered into the Thousand year millennial reign we're post Mill I mean how do you not See that as a similarity that They believe in the Reign of Christ already happening because I would Point to that and say what about the dark ages the dark ages Is obviously not Christ ruling and reigning How is the land of Canaan the time when Christ Is ruling and reigning Again I don't believe the millenniums happened I don't believe it was supposed to be Back then I believe those times are For specific purposes so Let me just ask you this So everybody Who believes Melchizedek was Jesus believes two things He was a priest and that he was a king If he is a king over Salem Then he is ruling and reigning In Salem as a priest So is it just your position That it's blasphemous to think Melchizedek is Jesus? No because the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the lamb Slaying from the foundation of the world so Jesus Christ could be referred to with those titles Even though it's not happening at that moment It's talking about how he's the future king Of Jerusalem in fact it says Over his head when he's crucified king of the Jews But he never he was not ruling and reigning As the king of the Jews At the time that he was crucified so even though He has that title even though he's given that name It doesn't mean that it's talking about That specific moment in time If you do believe that Melchizedek Was a pre-incarnate Christ which I have no problem with that Theory whatsoever I've probably even said things similar to that before I'm not even sure that that's wrong But I would say that those titles are not Talking about a literal fulfillment At that moment in history But rather it's just Jesus Christ is really The king of Jerusalem he's the king of kings He's the lord of lords there's all kinds of titles Given to the lord Jesus Christ he's the lamb slain From the foundation of the world he wasn't Slaying you know literally From the foundation of the world He was slain as we know around 34 AD But that doesn't mean That he isn't the lamb slain from the foundation Of the world it's talking about how God speaks of things Before they happen and so I think it's possible that that's how You could interpret that to say that he was A king or a priest for any Amount of time to me I just totally reject I think it's wrong And then I think to suggest it happened for thousands Of years is just insane it would just be literally Insane that Cain was Fleeing from Jesus Christ At that time I think the presence Of the lord can be demonstrated in many places Of not being on earth in 2 Chronicles Chapter number 18 We see the lying spirit Before the lord In heaven and that lying spirit's asking Permission from God To go be a lying spirit in the mouth Of all of these false prophets Similarly in my mind how the Devil's asking permission I'm sorry? Where was presence of the Lord there? I'm saying before the lord It uses the phrase before the lord Which is the exact same phrase used in Job chapter 1 verse Number 6 so you have God there with his host and You have the lying spirit there it says And they're before the lord they ask Permission God grants them the permission To go down being lying in spirit and then Similarly the devil presents himself Before the lord and he's Asking permission in a sense or he's Whether you ask or not he's granted Permission at least to afflict Job To end up testing him and in my view That seems very compatible in Revelation Chapter number 12 you have the devil cast down From heaven which he was known as The accuser of the brethren day and night Wouldn't that imply that he was Accusing God's people In heaven if he was Cast out of heaven and they're now rejoicing That he's been cast down and The reason given is because he was Accusing them day and night wouldn't that Stand a reason that he was accusing them In heaven do you believe that the devil Accuses us in heaven? Day and night in Job this looks like a unique Event I'm sorry you're saying that Job Wants a unique event? Yeah cause there was a day when the sons of God came Present themselves before the lord and Satan Came also among them so this was Something's going on where men are presenting Themselves before the lord now if that's in heaven What in the world are they doing? If it's on earth it makes perfect sense And before the lord there are References to that being before the tabernacle There are references to that being in heaven So you have to look at what is taking Place before the lord You don't believe saved people were in heaven In the book of Job at that time Right but is there anything in the scriptures That shows saved people Needing to present themselves before the lord That is temple language That's something they would do to Show themselves to the priest to see If they were to be declared Clean there's an example of that After somebody had a leprosy They would go through a cleansing period and they would Appear before the Priest they would present themselves So the bible says that Nimrod presented himself I mean the bible says that Nimrod Was a mighty hunter before the lord So you're saying Nimrod presented himself In a temple? So do you think he hunted in heaven? No but I'm saying before the lord Before the lord is a broad term That could be applied to a lot of different things You're kind of limiting it to the temple Every time it sounds like Because he's there specifically We're seeing men presenting themselves Before the lord We see that in the temple I don't know what it means to be a mighty hunter before the lord But I definitely think it was on earth The bible says in Genesis 13 the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners Before the lord exceedingly Yeah that was on earth Was that at the tabernacle or the temple Is that temple language? So what's temple language? Presenting yourselves Before the lord So it has to say present before the lord Is there another time where it uses The word present with Before the lord Yes in fact I have some notes On that too If I can find it So you use Leviticus chapter 16 I think right Where the two goats and they present them before the lord Leviticus 16 they present before the lord Leviticus second psalm 31 Lord said unto Moses behold at a day's approach That thou must die Call Joshua and present yourselves In the tabernacle of the congregation That I may give him a charge 1 Samuel 10.19 you have this day rejected your God Who himself saved you In all your diversities and in your tribulations And you have said unto him That he has set a king over us Now therefore present yourselves Before the lord by your tribes So when people present themselves before the lord something whether you're saying first name of chapter 10 is happened temple temple what's that is first Samuel 10 happening in a temple it's happening on earth I'm not sure no I you're just saying it you're just saying this ceremonial thing to check up on people for something specific I think in Job they're just there you know worshiping the Lord I think sons of God they had their ways of worshiping the Lord probably offering sacrifices as job do we see the job offered sacrifices that was before the law and so they said whatever their worship practice looked like I think that's what they were doing and I don't see any evidence of people presenting themselves before the Lord in heaven except except interestingly enough in Jude it talks about unto him who is able to present you faultless I can't find the scripture in front of me but again that is again that's temple language how do we become clean how do we present ourselves but there's no temple there's no temple in verse same with chapter 10 I didn't have to be a temple I'm just saying it's it's so you're saying it's temple length ceremonial earthly practice and they would present them and so they would have because first off they didn't have the temple yet in first Samuel but wherever they were worshiped maybe it was I don't remember where they worshiped in first Samuel 10 or where the tabernacle was tabernacle could have been there I you can fact check me on that and see if I'm right or wrong but again there was something they would do at the temple is something to do with the tabernacle I'm just saying it's a ceremonial thing and one of these days our high priest is going to present us before the Lord in his glory and we will be able to approach that glory and we see in Exodus 2 that when God was on Mount Sinai that you know Moses he was allowed to go up and to be in the presence of the Lord but everybody else was told to stay away to stay off the mountain so I'm just saying what I'm seeing in job looks like some kind of ceremonial temple type language of people you know doing some kind of cleansing or whatever and some kind of worship practice don't know for sure again a lot of these things are very foreign to us because we've never had to do any of them thanks to what Jesus Christ did for us I'm very thankful for that I mean modern versions of the Bible literally just say angels or the heavenly council in those particular passages so they they definitely are not seeing your temple language there I don't see your temple language at all either see angels either I don't believe it's angels I believe that the sons of God were saved Christians so I'm sure we agree on that particular viewpoint I I just don't see this phrase present before the Lord is a special charge though I can't get over that because again I think you're conflating me saying that Melchizedek whether it be Jesus or a man to me it doesn't matter if he's the king of Salem to me that means he's a king of a city if he's a priest that means he's doing the work of a priest I don't believe that's Jesus fulfilling or Melchizedek attempting to fulfill the prophecies about Jesus ruling on earth with a rod of iron no I think he's here for a very specific purpose and that is to be a be a priest during during that time and you know that's it so there's no failure there and as far as the wickedness that was going on in that area well without throughout Jerusalem's history that value the son of Hinnom specifically to some of the greatest abominations of all happened and that's right by the temple that's close to everything a lot of times they were surrounded by wickedness the temple was almost always surrounded by wickedness and but at the same time I don't think that you know Melchizedek would have allowed wickedness going on in the part that he had control over because even to those areas it's like we've just got this attitude if they're in that area they kind of have control over that entire region but understand they already were in Jerusalem and had part of that area before David went and took the stronghold of the Jebusites and so they would often live in very close proximity through some very wicked people and some enemies I mean literally in sight of each other but yet they still had their area and they were still being obedient and keeping it pure and all that kind of stuff but those other places were terrible so I don't know what the borders were I don't you know I don't know for sure what it was I'm just saying it's really weird to think there was a king but he wasn't reigning over anything and again if you want to conflate that with Jesus ruling as king of kings and lords well that's nobody's claiming that I I for sure I'm not claiming that so to just to speculate on something like that now I'm not speculating on him being a king or being a priest that is clear me speculating on how long he was there or where he was I don't think that I just don't see how you can get blasphemy out of that I think you need to get blasphemy to scare people away from possibly going along with that position because it is it's a very popular thing that the sons of God were presenting themselves before the Lord in heaven I'm just pointing out the elephant it's so popular I've never heard anybody other than you say it that's how popular it is but I would say again Psalm chapter 2 says in verse 2 the kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed saying let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us he that sit in the heavens shall laugh the Lord shall have them derision then shall he speak in them in his wrath and vex them in his sword his pleasure yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion I will declare the decree the Lord has said to me thou art my son this day have I begotten thee ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession now this is quoted in the book of Acts in chapter number 4 and it even explains this passage it says in verse 25 who by the mouth of thy servant David has said why did the heathen rage and the people imagine being things the kings of there stood up and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ for of a truth against thy holy child Jesus whom thou is anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people as your gather together for to do whatsoever thy hand my counsel determined before to be done so it's very clearly talking about something that's gonna happen in the future when the Lord Jesus Christ is condemned by both Herod and Pilate and then he's crucified dies resurrects then we have the famous this day have I begotten thee quote about the Lord Jesus Christ that he's the first begotten of the dead the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ then it's saying in Psalm chapter 2 ask and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and yet you're basically suggesting that Christ already had that inheritance that he already was there ruling and reigning as a king in the holy hill of Zion and it just seems completely blasphemous to say that this already happened and then yet Psalms is saying like this is gonna happen in the future here's gonna be the fulfillment and again Christ when he rules and reigns he is going to was the Bible says break them with a rod of iron thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel be wise now therefore you kings be instructed judge of their serve the word of fear and rejoice with trembling kiss the Sun lest he be angry and he perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little blessed all that put his trust in him I believe that's again talking about the millennial reign how Jesus Christ is gonna rule with a rod of iron that he did not come to first and again you know no he did not write first to in his first coming to rule and reign he came to be a sacrifice and to give his life rants let me say it this way but again this pre-incarnate Christ view is just it just dismantling all of these prophecies about what Christ is gonna do when he does reign eventually no you're like suggesting he was already reigning but it was obviously not like this this this description is not what was happening in the land of Canaan no that's why I'm saying it's blasphemous what no I know listen I'm not claiming he reigned like that I'm not claiming he tried to fulfill those prophecies back and let me say it this way okay let's assume that Melchizedek is a man and it's not Jesus and if I say I believe Melchizedek was a king of Salem and he ruled and reign there in Salem and that he was a priest there also in Salem is that blasphemous is that me saying he fulfilled Jesus's prophecy well if it's just a random dude then we're not talking about Jesus Christ and I don't have a problem with listen but he didn't ruin right like that's a different type of reign so you wouldn't think that's blasphemous because we're talking about a different type of reign how could we blasphemous we're not talking about God blaspheming is talking about God or the things of God or the Word of God but again Jesus did things on earth as a man and so and there's again these there's not a difference between the main race I know this is God there's no no way to make that blasphemous to me if that if I am supposedly saying that Jesus did all these things on Mount Zion that he's not supposed to do until the future it would be more blasphemous if I'm claiming that Melchizedek was a man but it's it would be blasphemous why would I believe world and with a rod of iron from Mount Zion as Melchizedek no he's being the king of Salem he's being the priest why would it be blasphemous to say that Melchizedek is just a man what's that why is it blasphemous to say that Melchizedek was just a regular person because if what you're claiming I am claiming Melchizedek was doing during that time that you're you know that you're saying belongs to Jesus in the future it would be worse to say a man was doing that but see I'm not saying that you understand that no that logic not that logic and make sense I'm not saying a man was fulfilling Psalms 2 during that time and I'm not saying Jesus was fulfilling Psalms 2 during that time right but I'm saying Psalm 2 is telling us what it's gonna be like when he rains right and a time I agree and your time rings does that I'm like off be here during that and what he was doing was off again yeah I believe that your theory is super blasphemous it doesn't make sense I think you needed to be blasphemous I don't need I don't want to be what I have no vested interest there's no blasphemy there yes there's no way to show in a clear the Bible says that he must reign in 1st Corinthians chapter number 15 and you're again suggesting he's already rained yes he must reign talking about over the world not Salem where he's written rolling and raining there just as king and priest during that time and in that in that specific area for a very specific purpose I am NOT claiming there is in any way any connection to the fulfillment of those future prophecies I believe those are in the future by Jesus Melchizedek whoever he was I don't believe he did any of those things that were prophesied of during that time I believe he was a priest doing something that Abraham gave ties to him he was there as a priest and so that's what I'm saying and if there's this there I don't see any way you can possibly spin that into blasphemy well I would I would hope not because if you believed it was blasphemous I would hope you would reject it but I'm trying to explain to you why I do believe is blasphemous but at the end of day it's strange because number one nobody else believes that I know of no one else I know of believes that job one six happened on earth no one that I know of believes that Jesus Christ was not not necessarily the pre-incarnate my cousin lots of people do that but I'm saying that he was on the earth from Abraham until the Passover over to the baton passing the baton over at the wild Mariah it's a really bad wild guess it's a really really bad okay so just let me jump let me jump in real quick if I could so you know just to make sure that we understand pastor McMurtry when you say that's a wild guess you're basically saying that you're not dogmatic about the time period that Melchizedek was reigning but that you were open to the possibility and leaning toward the possibility that he was operating for several hundred years is that right awesome yeah I just think it's possible if it okay I it's only possible if that one man was done if it was Jesus of course because if it was just a random guy he wouldn't have that kind of incredible lifespan so right just to just to maybe help clarify where pastor Shelley's coming from I think the idea here is that if we have Jesus Christ a literal King and not just you know being given the title of King because he's gonna do that later or that's just who he is intrinsically but that if he's actually a functioning king of a city for several hundred years or even millennia okay that that is a super weird doctrine that nobody's ever heard of and that like if he was doing it he would have done a really good job he would have been cracking skulls he would have been ruling with a rod of iron and I guess the idea here is that when the children of Israel you know enter the promised land it's a super horrifically wicked place and so if he'd been the king of it of a major city there for hundreds of years how does that work when it's just super wicked and then the other thing is that you know I think the idea is that back when Abraham meets Melchizedek Salem could have been a pretty good place at that time because you know the iniquity of the Amorites wasn't fulfilled and so it's it's more the the idea that's bothering pastor Shelley I think pastor Shelley can correct me if I'm you know not articulating this correctly but I think the thing that's bothering him is the idea of Christ presiding over something that's tantamount to Sodom and Gomorrah in its wickedness and the idea of Jesus ruling and reigning on earth as the king of Salem even though it's over a small geography for several hundred years or even millennia as just being like a wild idea we've never heard of it our whole lives now you know first I just want to ask pastor Shelley quick is that the issue pastor Shelley I would say that's one of the things that I had mentioned earlier but also just the fact that he ruled it for even five seconds I think it is kind of in violation see of what your your position pastor Shelley would be your position pastor Shelley would be that if it were a pre-incarnate Christ that basically he shows up he has the title of the king of Salem just because he's Jesus and he he basically but he's in the not actually like politically I'm thinking I'm saying like he's okay like he's the lamb slain from the validation of the world he that's gonna happen but in the future he's the king of Salem but that's gonna happen the future or it could even be referring to the fact that Jerusalem in heaven and he is the king of Jerusalem in heaven he says explicitly on the pilot that his kingdom is not of this world specifically so you know again that would be another proof text in my favor of what I'm trying to argue is that I don't think he ruled for one second on the earth up to this point and I believe that all the texts that are talking about him ruling and reigning you know on earth literally are a future thing that's gonna happen only for a thousand years so anything saying okay so I think we all understand I think we all understand your position that you know I see yeah so let me ask McMurtry would you like to respond to the things that I said because I just felt like the conversation was kind of an impasse I'm trying to kind of break us out of that impasse so maybe you want to clarify anything or respond to anything yeah so let me just let me say this based on what you're saying though if Melchizedek is not Jesus there's no problem with him being a king and ruling over a small city is that right yes okay I don't think it would matter who he was because what you are referring to as far as like the future fulfillments of prophecies I don't I don't believe those things can be fulfilled except through Jesus Christ of course after his incarnation after his death burial and resurrection after he fulfills all these legal things I believe if that's Jesus back then he's serving a very different in a very specific purpose and I don't care one way or the other as far as the length of time again he could have potentially moved around I don't know hey all's I but here's the thing to say it's blasphemous because I it's I say theoretically maybe it was for a long time well how many years does it have to be until it's blasphemous because he's clearly doing something during Abraham's Day so was it for six months and that's okay like I said five seconds of raining I'm just trying to figure out I can I don't care if you disagree with me on this this is not a strong position that I'm willing to fight for I don't want to blaspheme one way or the other even even though it's a more of a speculation and me just saying hey what if you know would this fit does this make sense hey now if if you can display to me how thinking that way is in fact blasphemous then I would say well then that would definitely be wrong for sure because you know obviously it's not gonna be blasphemous I just don't think there's any way to make sense of that being blasphemous if you want to call it dumb if you want to call it outlandish if you want to call it weird and bizarre or whatever that's fine but I don't see where I'm disrespecting Christ I don't see where I'm taking away from what the future prophecies that I believe are to be fulfilled that I don't even believe I don't believe for two seconds even try to fulfill back then yeah I think it was a very okay I I think we should let's drop the blasphemy charge I actually tend to agree with Pastor McMurtry that this may not be blasphemous I don't know if I would call this but I would say it's the dumbest weirdest crap I've ever heard in my life but I wouldn't say that it's blasphemous so I kind of I have to concede to him that point how many years would it have to be before it's at least not the dumbest thing you ever heard I mean I don't want to say that I don't want to take over and start giving my view or opinion I genuinely want to know how many years before it's no longer the dumbest thing you ever heard because it's just speculation I don't speculate the dumbest thing you ever heard so so let me I don't really want to you know make this show all about me I don't want to take this the limelight I would love it I'm here to play second but I'm here to play second fiddle I think pastor Shelley's completely out to lunch if you genuinely agree you know that it is it's dumb and the dumbest thing ever heard no matter how long but it sounds like thinking it's a long period of time upgrades this to some crazy insanity I just want to know how many years before it's no longer insane okay I'll briefly give my view since you really want my view but I just don't want to take over the show I'd rather conversation so I will just briefly tell you that if this is an Old Testament appearance of Christ which I personally do not believe although I've gone back and forth over the years I can see both sides if it were a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ I believe it was just he's in and out single day just like when he appears to anybody or appears before Joshua or appears at the burning bush or appears I don't believe these is hanging out from for it so I don't even believe he's hanging out for a single year okay if it's an Old Testament appearance of Christ he pops up he does an act and he's gone I would tend to believe it's just a human being I think that there's a lot of you know obviously there are sacrifices before the law nobody's disputing that there you know Jethro is the priest of Midian you know Melchizedek is the priest of the Most High God at Salem you know I get all that but you know I just have a question for you I don't want to go into you know make it all about my view but I just want to ask you a couple of questions okay you're not dogmatic about the period of time I get that okay so two questions question number one what are the absolute extreme bookends for you when Melchizedek could be operating because are you saying that it's possible that he was operating even before the flood all the way until Mount Sinai because you know like give me those bookends and then question number two is just like which part of this are you dogmatic about when it comes to Melchizedek almost so if I answer the second part first I'm dogmatic on almost nothing with Melchizedek I can preach it either way from Hebrews let's talk about the bookends then so the bookends are he was always here from the beginning the other end is that yes that he was just he made an appearance specifically for the purpose I think to set a precedent because when I won't take time to go through Hebrews when you look at Hebrews I can read that in a way where I think God could have used Melchizedek and the story of Melchizedek again to set a precedent for why there could be a high priest better than the priesthood of Aaron with Jesus Christ so yes if it was Jesus I think that is very possible that it was a in and out thing I'm just again I'm spitballing it but if it's a man if it if it was something that was always around from beginning to the end I think it's more likely it would have been a line of men if you were to ask my opinion I think it's more likely that it would have if there was always a Melchizedek always a king of righteousness I think it would have been a special chosen man by God from the beginning until Sinai but I would never be dogmatic on that Melchizedek is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Bible he's fascinating I like to talk about him I like to speculate I like to think about these things and it's weird how you know mad people get if your speculation though in any way messes with their speculation that often they think is sound doctrine and what people think is sound doctrine is the sons of God presenting themselves before the Lord in heaven and that's why people lose their mind over this all right let's let's give it back to Pastor Shelley and I'll just say yeah I for sure still think it's blasphemous I'm not gonna change my mind on that but again it is speculative so I'm not saying that you're not you're not necessarily being dogmatic about it and I get yeah I don't want to speculate blasphemy I don't you know I feel like you satisfied my curiosity of just making sure you made those statements so I don't feel like I've misrepresented what you said maybe we differ on like how to interpret those things but you went to the ultimate stream on a charge which that's very very much like a Baptist that's kind of what we do either way always upgrade everything to some damnable heresy or blasphemy I don't want to necessarily walk away from this conversation we've gotten an hour and a half already in I don't want to walk away from this conversation my my belief about x-ray vision from the Centurion yeah I want to make sure that if there's something you wanted to address that we get that to that too but I have no problem getting to the Roman Centurion saw the veil rent and I want to first ask you is it because the Bible doesn't say which veil you do believe there's two veils correct that there's the veil into the holiest of Holies and then there's a nap there's an outward veil yeah so are you saying do you believe that both ripped or just the one in the holiest of Holies I believe the Holy of Holies one so you think that he could see through that first veil where the first veil is open or how do you how do you know how do we understand this yeah so again we understand this couple different ways I will show you a one verse that I think is pretty clear and makes a lot of sense and then I will show you a historical source Josephus and I think totally totally backs up what we're saying I guess the question I have for you do you really think that I was telling people that the Centurion had x-ray vision and could see through all of these things you weren't misrepresenting me or trying to make me sound crazy for you I think that if the Romans and Turian saw the veil rent that he would have had it have x-ray vision to be okay but do you think that I think that do you think maybe I'm seeing another image of what's obviously making fun of a dumb idea we're pointing out why so you're just okay I just I hope that people listening to you didn't think that I was teaching that the Centurion had x-ray vision okay obviously you and here's what's happening that's you and I when we read these stories are we're picturing two different things in our mind so let's go to the scriptures and then history to figure out what image we should have in our mind because neither of us have seen the temple neither us have seen where Jesus was crucified for sure okay we we don't know so we're looking at scriptures and trying to let it put an image in our mind and so when I read Matthew 27 50 and it says Jesus when he had cried again with a loud voice yielded up the ghost and behold the veil of the temple was rent and twain from the top to the bottom the earth did quake the rocks rent and the graves were open and many body of the Saints which slept the rose and came out of the graves after his resurrection went to the holy city and appeared unto many now when the Centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus saw the earthquake and those things that were done I believe that's referring to all the stuff that he just mentioned they feared greatly saying truly this was the Son of God I think the text is indicating they saw the rent veil now that to me with the image I have in my mind of the locations is not a problem at all you and I were probably seeing two different things so I understand why you would think x-ray vision or whatever I don't think x-ray vision I'm seeing something different I do believe there was a veil but I believe that was open often according to history while the other veil was closed let me read you something from Josephus okay this is and this is historical but it backs up the image that I have in my mind of seeing the Jesus Christ and the soldiers east of the temple I believe they could have seen into the temple and we see here it says I'll just read kind of the relevant sections it's a long section that says as to the holy house itself which was placed in the midst of the inmost court that most sacred part of the temple it was ascended by 12 steps so in that intersection of the temple you would go up 12 steps to get into the temple says its first gate was 70 cubits high and 25 cubits broad but this gate had no doors for it represented the universal visibility of heaven which is what they would refer to the Holy of Holies at as representative of heaven that's reference to other places in Josephus says and it cannot be excluded from any place if its front was covered with gold all over and through its first part of the house that was more inward did all of it appear and this is but then as the entire house was divided into two parts within we have the Holy of Holy place and then the Holy of Holies it was only the first part of it that was open to our view not everyone could go inside to the holy place only certain only certain people could do that but it was open to their view its height extended all along to 90 cubits in height and its length was 50 cubits in breadth 20 and it says but then this house as it was divided into two parts the inner part was the lower and then the appearance of the outer and had golden doors of 55 cubits altitude and 16 in breadth so there was a 55 cubit door that they were all able to look in and they could see the holy place and they could see the veil the veil was meant to conceal the holy holy from everybody on the outside so if you have an elevated temple there in the center up 12 steps that's not super high but then you've got a 55 cubit door and then there's other places that tell us that that veil of the temple was of equal size to that then you absolutely could have seen that from the place where we believe that Golgotha was directly across the the valley there in fact if I can do a screen share again I want to show you some pictures here because I could see the stinking curtains in the houses across that valley it's really not that difficult so let me get it to the right picture here before I switch it um but I just I just want to give you kind of a visual perspective here hang on a second all right almost have it here all right here's a pic this picture where I'm standing right here is somewhere in the general vicinity where we believe that the temple was and behind me I did that picture that on purpose because somewhere back in that area is what I think is probably the place where Jesus was crucified where the tomb was there are a bunch of rock-cut tombs back there let me it's trying to switch pictures it's not let me switch pictures here hang on one second this one's a better one that'll give you a better view so this is so right there somewhere I'm taking this picture now probably farther up from where the temple was but I you know again I don't know the exact spot somewhere in this general vicinity that that's a very narrow valley there if you were up on that hill and you were looking across it over that eastern wall that was not super high and you're looking at an elevated temple with a 55 qubit door and a massive curtain you absolutely could have seen the renting of the veil from from there so this I mean the Bible says I'm sorry to be five qubit door yes according to Josephus it was a 55 qubit door that was open so all were able to see in the holy place and and he said that the veil was meant to conceal the Holy of Holies that none of them were allowed to look into only the high priest to go in there so it's it's super easy to imagine and doesn't that look like that's what the Bible says now if the temple was on the traditional location okay and I don't have any pictures ready for that but that valley is much wider over there and I still think you could probably see it but here's the thing to nobody's claiming nobody you know it's the other locations of Golgotha nobody claims it was out there on either direction but the other locations one is more west of the temple that's where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is which I think is more would be more likely than Gordon's Calvary which is where most of the Protestants believe that it is but I think I'm sorry my excuse me sorry my internet was not working for a second so I cut out for a second I'll just say a 55 qubit door yeah what does that mean means it's 55 qubits tall in height it was 55 qubits I think in height and 15 I think it said in breath 16 so how can I found the quote that you had reference okay how can the I'm just trying to understand how the door can be 55 qubits high when the temples not 55 qubits high according to Josephus hang on I've got more of that quote here I think he says the height of it it says yeah it says the seven seven of its height and its breadth were equal each a hundred qubits is what he put so okay so is that is the idea here that the third temple or excuse me the second temple is a different dimension than Solomon's temple like it's just way bigger because the Bible obviously gives I don't even know for sure that's I'm just saying that's Josephus again because when they rebuilt the temple under Zerubbabel's day the temple that is in Jesus's day you know many people believe it was much larger and you know it was expanded I don't know and a lot of that's historical reference but Josephus who was an eyewitness which is the models to the model show a very large tall door like that and in fact I guess I'm on if you watch on a city lost there is a shot on there that's very brief where it's like this old black and white video showing the temple and it's pretty far away it's not as far as away as like you know we're across the valley but it's very far away and it's got a very tall door and you can see the veil back there so I'm just saying I'm just scriptures makes it look like the centurion could see the veil and based on what Josephus wrote wrote about it it makes sense that they could have and pastor Shelley maybe you might have some clarity on this I'm confused because I'm looking at the Bible the Bible saying that the temple is 30 cubits tall and then Josephus is talking about a 55 cubit tall door in a building that's 30 cubits tall unless we're supposed to believe that the second temple is double the height of the first temple does the Bible tell us that I've never heard of those does the Bible tell us the height of the temple in Jesus day I mean that Psalmist temple got destroyed well I mean I would I would less that's why he's trying to understand there's definitely a discrepancy there and and the reality is that it's also true that cubits are sometimes different measurements used by different people at different times even though we generally think of it as being about 18 inches or foot and a half is kind of what's typically understood it is possible that's part of the discrepancy that one cubit is not equivalent to the other cubit here the quote is legitimate as far as least I was found it I was reading obviously there was a lot of text in between what you were saying right but for the most part it is saying that the door and it mentions that other veil we're talking about but I but here's the thing you took that picture I don't know if that picture had zoom lens on it or not but let's just assume it didn't didn't even have it but every single picture I have ever seen of the temple complex from what any angle you're looking at you cannot see into the building you could maybe just see like if the door was open even you could maybe just see like a few feet in or something like that like from a geometric perspective of just angles alone if you're not perfectly level with that door even if it was open there's no way you could see far enough in to see that second veil additionally they're just the the gate itself because if we're going by your definition the gate itself according to Josephus is also 70 something cubits high so that makes it even taller than the door the idea that someone could see into this temple all the way through to me there's just so many things in the way whether that be the gates or the doors or the first veil or all this stuff and the quote that you gave earlier in the Bible you know it talks about many people being resurrected from the dead and it says when they saw these things I don't think that the Roman centurion is simultaneously seeing Jesus because it says they're watching Jesus it was the text says and then it's saying they saw these things but we're talking about maybe possibly 500 people being resurrected from the dead additionally earth quaking and the village of 500 well it doesn't the Bible say that there was people that were resurrected and there's so many where do you get 500 it could have maybe I'm just thinking of a different reference there of just how he showed himself under at least 500 brethren see what I will just say the Bible does say there's multiple people resurrected I don't think he's simultaneously seeing many people resurrected and coming out of their graves and the veil the temple running all the same time because they're all just random different locations you know I don't I don't see how it's possible from to see him all those things at the same time and seeing the veil I believe would have to be able to have x-ray vision if you're not next to a cliff I mean I don't know where you theorized that it was Mount Calvary was but if you're not right next to the cliff you can't see over it it doesn't matter if your elevation is higher or not you can't just see over the edge of a cliff I mean even if you're standing at the Grand Canyon you have to get all the way up to the edge to then go see down into the Grand Canyon even though you're way higher in elevation so unless you're literally next to the edge and you have eagle eyes and you had the perfect just line of sight there's just literally no way geometrically to be able to see in let alone again I would think you would have to have x-ray vision you only have to have a line of sight I could see Kurt five by five curtains in people's windows across that valley so probably at the edge of the cliff oh so you would only need line of sight if there's line of sight and again we don't know for sure what everything looked like you know some some of the models I've seen yes there would be stuff in the way I've seen other models where it wouldn't be a problem but I'm just I'm saying if you if you if you went over there if you look at these things if you look to in that area where there's these rock-cut tombs of split cinnamon things like that I mean it is it's except it's not that far it fits it's not like they're gonna be way above where the temple was you know I think they were probably somewhat level I can I can easily picture it in many ways and I've seen models where it completely works it doesn't work if it's in the traditional spot near as good you'd have to have much better eyes but over there it's not a problem I can see curtains in people's houses across the valley they're not near as large as that Bible also says that was extremely dark at the time so you know I don't I don't know what the vision would have been they had light in the temple they'll they had the candlestick that was always supposed to be lit I think I said I don't sound if someone be more likely to see it if it's lit up in there so I heard you you're criticizing pastor Thompson on this point about the veil of the temple and you said if if you don't believe that the Romans and Turian saw the holiest holy veil rent that you're not a biblicist you don't believe the Bible and you're an idiot do you still stand by I'm saying who is he Thompson was trying to make the point he's just got all his ideas from the Bible it's like well no if we're actually getting our image in our mind from the Bible according to the scripture the centurion has seen these things I mean you can say that I don't think it includes that but the sentence sure seems to indicate that that is what he's saying so again I'm saying I said I don't it's one of it's obviously not of great importance but if we are looking at geographical things and supposedly only forming our thinking from what we see in the Bible what I am reading there in the Bible indicates to me that from where Jesus was crucified they could see into the temple we have ten minutes like to make a strictly biblicist argument because again we are trying to apply what the Bible says and look at modern day when the Bible doesn't give us a modern-day map and a latitude and longitude and things like that we're dependent on history archaeology and all these things and so we listen to what they're saying and we see what makes the most sense what adds up with the Bible where is there where there's consistency and and again what I'm so is someone that doesn't believe that an idiot and doesn't believe the Bible was that if someone doesn't believe that are they an idiot and they don't believe the Bible cuz I got a little large that but I I mean I don't want to give the impression that I don't think that about Pastor Thompson but that would I be arched all right guys we got ten minutes left we got ten minutes left okay and you know let's try to kind of bring it back because all of these other subjects you know are related to the subject of where the temples located the whole temple zero thing the milk is because you know a city lost covers temple zero for a substantial amount of time and obviously this Golgotha thing is the next film and this is you know a big argument even though it doesn't appear in a city lost it's an ancillary topic but let's kind of bring it back just for these last nine and a half minutes let's kind of bring it back and and you know pastor McMurtrie's gotten a lot more time than than pastor Shelley so let's maybe have this segment be a little heavier on pastor Shelley if we can but let's just kind of bring it back to strongest arguments and let's kind of let's kind of give the the short not complicated people at home that are glazing over maybe to some of these more complicated things let's just get some punchy simple arguments going back and forth for the location of the temple it just to kind of round things out pastor Shelley start us off just give some powerful pieces of evidence on the back of a postage stamp and and let's go well I would say that again history says that the temple mounts the right location tradition says the temple mounts the right location all archaeologists agree that the temple mount is the right location the experts agree that it's the right location except for maybe this hypothetical idea of these secret these secret confessors publicly they're stating that temple on the temple mount period when it comes to the Bible the Bible is very clear that the temples built on Mount Moriah I don't see how that could possibly in the valley with Gihon spring the Bible is very clear that the temple was not in the city of David in Second Chronicles chapter number five because the ark was taken out of the city of David so I believe that it's not their historical witnesses also confirm the geography matches exactly the biblical designation throughout history of people like Hadrian building on some something the temple of Jupiter you have the Muslims building the marach they seem to be convinced that that was a special place you have the Crusades fighting over the temple mount location they obviously believed that that was that place so you know why would I then just throw all history in the trash all the archaeological evidence in the trash that is at least of today modern day for Jeremiah chapter 19 verse 2 which says that Jeremiah was supposed to go out the east gate to the valley of the son of Hiddom I mean the valley of son of Hiddom is south of the city of David it doesn't appear to be to the east of their proposed theory or to the temple mount so I feel like it's just not a point for either side I don't know that McMurtry pastor McMurtry made another got enough chance to maybe make another two or three clear evidence arguments I didn't necessarily hear them yeah let's let's but that was good you you basically that was summary what I already said earlier yeah you rapid fired a bunch of just clear arguments let's keep it simple for the people at home here okay we've already gone into all the deep stuff this is just kind of wrapping it up so pastor McMurtry can you hit us with just some punchy kind of one-liners give us some clear proof for your side yes so you're not throwing history in the trash it cannot be established historically it's history and tradition because we do have historical references like what happened with during Hadrian's time but there's gaps in that history and so it gets filled in with tradition and that's where there are there are huge gaps they're always filled in with tradition as far as the temple that Hadrian built I forgot to cover this earlier those were destroyed and taken away by Constantine whenever he came along most of the locations today they're well accepted historically there's very strong evidence that they going back to the fourth century if all the Christian locations Church of the Holy Sepulchre Church of St. James all these play many other places fourth century strong evidence for those being legitimate but there was 300 years and when you look at how they figured out where these Christian locations took place you know is it was tradition it was speculation there there is not historical proof there's history and tradition huge gaps in the history prophecies hey yes I love Robert Cornuke's line where he points the pictures this fulfills the prophets this does not there according to what all the historians are saying about the traditional Temple Mount there's no evidence that there was ever plowed as a field that all the stones were removed that wailing wall the Jews do call that the wall of the temple you know why because they understand that the entire perimeter was a part of the temple it's the Christians who try to separate that because they're trying to make that be the wailing wall and it fit Jesus's prophecy did here it expand the temple mount platform was that here did Herod expand the temple mount platform yeah so if if Herod had expanded part of the temple in Jesus day if Herod had expanded the temple mount would the Western Wall not be that expansion if our theory is right okay yes but that was before Jesus said there will not be one stone left upon another did he also say they'll be thrown down would it make sense that if the temple mount was there they were throwing the temple complex that was already existing before Herod expanded it off of an expanded temple mount location and it has nothing to do with the other place too yeah they could have done in the other place too easy no problem it also said to in the prophets therefore why is the city of David I mean if you excavate excavate the city of David they find all kinds of little shops towns streets everything it doesn't seem like a temple was ever there there's this is the city there I mean they say there's no there's no location that's what they say temple zero is they say but you said there was zero is not part of Solomon's temple right because if they if they admit it's part of Solomon's temple then they are saying that should be the temple mount location if this is zero at least you can't said I heard it from his own mouth there was a temple here that's what temple zero though is part of Solomon's temple wouldn't that contradict scripture because doesn't Nehemiah and then when they come back don't they have to relay the foundation completely yeah right but the relay in the foundation though again they always built over that and they'll tell you that there too it's not like today where we would go and you know dig everything up and like pour new concrete and stuff like that they would have to create a new base and they would build over the old bases and so if you go there at the city of David today in fact I've got some pictures of it but I want to take time to go through all of it you can see all the different rock layers and how the city has been built up when you go over there and you look at these areas they've excavated one conclusion you'll come to we have no idea what the terrain would have looked like in Jesus's day because they have built that city up so much and so whenever they're laying the foundation they are there they're basically creating a new platform and much of what they would be building would have been built on top of the the old so it's not like they build this on top and start all over it was the building on top of the Gihon spring no no in that yeah and you brought that up earlier too is the film does your film say that he went what's that does your film say that I don't remember I don't think so I don't think I don't think it says that it says it was old washing guys geyser upon which would would shoot up like I think I'm not gonna get the number right like 70 feet or something like that right that was then supplying yeah that was in the temple and again if it was then that would be in reference more to the temple complex I guess I mean like in the I'm pretty sure that you have a screenshot of a temple on top of the Gihon spring in your film I do I'm just saying like on film has a literal picture of the temple yeah on top of the Gihon spring again my understanding from what I'm hearing and what I'm looking at I think most people client or the the claim is more that temple zero is where you know Melchizedek's temple was made probably where Davis tabernacle was the Gihon Springs is kind of it's kind of hard to tell just because it's all underground so I could be wrong and I could be turned around in my mind on where the Gihon spring is geographically because it's to get to the spring which we didn't walk through the tunnel you're walking underground for a long time so I might not have the right image in my mind of where the spring was where the spring is like from a Google Earth perspective so answers in Genesis has an entire article dedicated to y'all's theory and they have like pictures of Ernest Martin's temple as well as Cornuks temple mm-hmm I don't know let me see I want to bring this up maybe if you can bring it up on the screen and and you see if I can get a comment but if they can go to my screen for just a second so this is this is an article by answers I'll go scroll up back up just for a second but this is an article by answers in Genesis it says where did Solomon build the temple and it's basically just talking about Cornuks research specifically and it says this is like a standard temple mount model but they have a couple options here this is what they say is Ernest Martin's view which is the first book written kind of on this theory then that book was replicated by Cornuks and then they have Cornuks temple Bob Cornuks view of the temple and pretty much you know if you look at a map like down here in this corner this Eastern cloister of the temple that is where the Gihon spring is so I'm just kind of curious like is this is this accurate is this what you believe this would generally look like yeah I mean I think it would be bigger than that probably but I mean again I've seen a lot of models like that that one like this one look yeah that's probably a little closer some of the ones I've seen to actually have them a little closer together but again that's yeah I so I don't know your view like what happened all this dirt and rock and so go up what's that what would have happened all this dirt and rock and all this stuff that's in red on down and a lot of the throne down from what other places what was it thrown down some where would it come be thrown down from that's a deep valley down there that Valley the son of Hinnom area is a very deep valley in fact there's still tons of stuff underground completely unexcavated down but if you start like you start throwing these buildings off like when you get down to the bottom what are you gonna throw them down from all right we're out of time folks we're one and a half minutes over also throw the bottom ones you can go back to the you can go back to the screen of us we're out of time folks we need it's time to call it a night for the love of all that's holy we've already talked about this so many times so many episodes of the Baptist Bias let's just give let's just give each other a couple minutes just to let's give Pastor McMurtry a chance to just at least wrap up or summarize his thoughts or feelings if there's anything I don't love say say goodbye to us briefly say goodbye yeah give us give us your give us like a salutation of closing briefly good yeah so again this obviously this is a very complicated subject there's so much stuff to it there were so many things mentioned that did just didn't have time to go into it really is you know it helps a lot going over there and getting perspective and when I say things like Pool of Siloam you know Caiaphas's house all these other things it means nothing to most people listening but understand if they are right about the traditional location they are wrong about everything else according to what we read in the Bible and when you go over there and you look at these places you read the scriptures with them it makes sense when you have in the right spot when you're over there reading this stuff you know with the traditional it doesn't make sense and so I don't care if people disagree but you know I like to think about it I like to talk about it I like to speculate again the Melchizedek stuff that is so much speculation it's interesting I love to talk about it but as Baptist boy we lose our minds when people their speculation interferes with our speculation and this jumping to the most extreme streams of declaring things blasphemy sounds like you just don't want to have an argument and you're just trying to stop people from even considering other possibilities and I just think that's unfair and you know but you know that happens when arguments get emotional just like me saying if you don't believe the centurion saw that you're stupid and not a biblicist that was probably me just projecting my personal feelings I had towards another individual rather than being objective about a certain belief that can happen and so when we do that we heard our own argument and so I think it's better if you just have open dialogue like this where we can keep each other in check hold each other accountable and you know obviously neither of us are really getting each other to concede on anything even accusations of blasphemy but I think we had a good conversation I enjoyed it and you know I guess that I appreciate this opportunity yeah I would just like to say I appreciate McMerch past me Richard coming on the show I really never expected this to ever happen or for him to greed to come on I feel like his arguments were very uncompelling I think that if it was it was true he'll be able to give us short simple explanations I do think it's a super boring and you know I think that everybody was really excited about this discussion and this debate but the topic was just so dry and so nuanced that it is really hard for people to even enjoy it I think people were like hoping we were just gonna like yell at each other or something or like call each other names or something like that but I was really hoping to be challenged on you know some some really good proofs but at the end of the day I didn't I didn't hear anything that made any sense to me maybe I'm just not smart you know maybe I haven't been there maybe if I'd been at this special location where Satan presented himself before the Lord I would have figured it out but I guess I didn't I'm not I'm not trying to just be hyperbolic in my view that thinking Melchizedek is is existing the entire Old Testament Jesus is there performing sacrifices blasphemous I just genuinely believe that maybe I'm wrong maybe it's not it doesn't cross that boundary but the Bible you know the Bible to me is very clear on when Christ is gonna rule and reign and that he's not going to be a failure and the Bible does say blasphemy is being irreverent towards the towards God is one of the definitions and so to me like I do think it could be of mild form of blasphemy to suggest that in any way that he was not you know successful or that there was anything negative happening under his reign so you know that to me that is a mild form of blasphemy whether I'm wrong or not it doesn't really matter it's still stupid and crazy and insane in my vision in my position but at the end of the day you know I appreciate our audience I don't know what's gonna happen in the future I don't see people wanting to hear about the subject ever again but at the end of the day you know like I I'm still willing to be convinced because I have I could care less if the temple was in the city of David or in the valley of son of Hinnom or over on the Mount of Olives or what like the none of that stuff matters to me I'm not that interested as far as like its true location other than it just being right like I obviously care about the truth and I just want things be right I also don't want to say things that are wrong I find that the geography over there matches the Bible you know that's described today I think the modern labels are very accurate I think history is is generally accurate on this subject I think the archaeologists that their discoveries are accurate maybe not all their labeling and their interpretation of the facts and so you know again I found this topic to be pretty engaging I enjoy this subject now that I've learned a little bit about it watch dr. Fink's documentary on the true location of the temple and you'll probably never think anything contrary after you watch that film but again thanks to pastor McMurtrie for coming on thanks pastor Anderson can I make one statement yeah it's not like an argument I feel like no no it's fine hey it's my show he can say it what do you want to say so I I told Paul when we started this project I said you know I said you do understand this project while I love it I said is not going to be interesting to everyone and I knew that because I had tried in the past to do different geographical presentations at our church and I did it back in my youth group to what both of those things had in common I bored everyone to tears but I love the subject and I never cared about it until I went to Israel if you go to Israel you'll love this subject and there's a church that's going to be showing the documentary that came out and watched our viewing because that they go over there they take trips over there every year and they love the documentary and so there is it changes your perspective when you actually go and see these places I'm Tony you need to go over there check it out sometime and you will love this subject all right thanks so much for coming on the show thanks pastor Anderson for moderating I feel like you're pretty impartial from my viewpoint so I'm impressed by that thanks for doing it you want to say anything before we head out yeah I mean you know I kind of went into this with the idea that I was going to make sure everybody got equal time pastor McMurtry ended up you know talking about twice as much as pastor Shelley but that's that's simply because it seemed like pastor Shelley wanted to let him talk and so that therefore I just let the conversation naturally go the way that it was going because I feel like pastor Shelley was just giving him enough rope to hang himself with because the things that he was saying were so stupid and absurd and bizarre and like we all just kind of wanted to hear it out of his own mouth because I think that a lot of people they think that when we talked about his insane view of Melchizedek being literally Jesus ruling on earth for thousands of years even before the flood after the flood you know just it's unheard of no one's ever taught this it's Mormon Scientology level weirdness and you know I I kept wondering like are we misunderstanding something about this but one thing that this broadcast accomplished was that he made it super clear yeah he really does believe that dumb crap and I kind of just wonder is pastor McMurtry unsaved to be this stupid about the Bible and to have no understanding of what the Bible says to even come up with such an insane crazy theory or is God just blinding him as a punishment for hating his brother in Christ I don't know which one it is but you know I feel like I did a good job as a moderator just letting both sides talk and you know being impartial and trying to kind of give the viewer at home what they wanted as much as possible although you know not necessarily the most exciting subject in the world but anyway that's all I did a great job and I think your opinion and the extreme view of that is I'm kind of done listening to pastor McMurtry so I'm leaving now because honestly like the guy just can't shut up we've already listened to him like twice as much as as you so I've kind of had enough well have a good night thanks I appreciate past mercury coming on the show I did I did want to give him more time to speak because I wanted to give him an opportunity to present his you know arguments I don't like misrepresenting people so you know I'm sure that I do I'm sure sometimes I exaggerate things and I don't want to do that so I did want to at least you know have a lot of questions obviously I don't want him to necessarily have to take the credit for everything Robert kernuksetter did because you know maybe he differs from him a little bit on that but I find that Robert Cornuke is very very confused if if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt I think he's probably just you know a charlatan personally I think a lot of the things that he has to say his book doesn't make any sense to me I think it's totally disrespectful or dishonorable to suggest that Eli Shukron could lose his license and job and be discredited for his viewpoints and then put it in a book like if someone if one of my friends told me in confidence hey I have this opinion but I can't really tell people publicly because I don't want to like lose my job and then I like write it in a book to sell I just feel like that just seems like a terrible friend very disingenuous and it doesn't it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever additionally you know I just don't why we would include people in a film project that that publicly disagree with your premise or with your view or with your show I do think that Pastor McMurtry is saved I think that he just I think that at some point he decided to get really bitter angry about something and it's caused him to go down a bad path maybe just going to Israel cause him a lot of problems I don't know why the the job theory came out in his brain I kind of wonder if that happened prior to his going to Israel but it just seems like he's just hitting the Melchizedek temple you know for just almost everything now because it's just like it's where Melchizedek was it's Solomon's temple it's the the true location it's where what happened in Job he even said that the Ark of the Covenant was in potentially temple zero in this Melchizedek thing and again that just seems so contrary to the Bible since it's saying it's in a tabernacle that David had to set up if Melchizedek temple's already there prior to David showing up then David doesn't have to pitch a tabernacle for the Ark of the Covenant to go into so again just like all of these ideas are just so half-baked it just seems like they just don't make sense whatsoever I don't I don't get them and you know you know for the most part I wish that Pastor McMurtry would just snap out of whatever happened to him because he used to seem to be pretty friendly towards us and like us but I don't know what's happened to him I was just allowing him to say whatever I'm sorry I almost died laughing though when I asked him specifically about you know Jesus in the flood and he said that he maybe he just left I almost died you know laughing on that because it was just so funny to me and it just made no sense and it's just it's just ridiculous it's just ridiculous that he doubled down on those theories but again I know he's saying his speculation but it's just it's bad speculation we can all speculate about things but you don't want to be contrary be contrary to clear scripture so thanks again for coming on the show to air out your views I think he was sincere in what he said but he's sincerely confused he made no good arguments about the temple location and I'm sure he convinced literally no one of anything that was already having a contrary opinion maybe we could have done a poll that would have been good we should have a poll to see if anybody changed their mind in favor of Pastor McMurtry's view after this show we had over 500 people in the show thank you so much oh we got a comment glory Baptist says you lost Shelley actually the comment section was lit I would have to say that the comments was way more enjoyable than the actual show because it was just like the show was kind of dull it was really really boring but the the comment section was fire the thing that stinks about rumble though is it isn't preserve the comment section so if I don't read some of these things then we just lose them in history but Ben the Baptist said I think he's confounded I'm gonna I'm gonna try and go through and read some of these when Pastor Anderson was speaking John the Baptist said let him cook pastor yep Murphy by John Baptist OSA says oh some of that bitterness looks like we had Tommy the third in the chat as well a lot of a lot of people are interacting with him I'm not finding one of his comments right now but says let's see don't kick a dead horse so I guess some people are getting tired of the show uncompelling I was looking for a rocky end of the movie fight yeah someone had said in here I saw I can't remember what person they said I wish they would just fight to death that was what they were wanting that was the show that they were hoping for Chunky says the globe behind him is pretty sick I don't know if that's a flat tard or what I don't get that comment let's see spring crest 1611 shout out to you being in the chat he said please no more man I feel like everybody hated the show it's like this is so painful NAR says I like to eat and enjoy all types of food I have no idea what that has to do with the show but obviously they had to start their own conversations because the show is just so boring Polios IQ says Tucson's got the best Mexican food ever you don't need to try anything else BAM shout out to Tucson's food some people are hating on Indian food some people are loving Indian food I think most people know where I fall on that man it's just it's just like a food battle in here oh it's because someone suggested that temple zero is a restaurant so then we got under the we got on the restaurant train so okay let's see oh I guess Tommy the third got removed at some point I didn't know about that but I guess we didn't like his comments bro is dumber than a box of rocks yikes I don't see a lot of I don't think there was a lot of pro McMurtry people in the chat maybe some of them got out it or got x-rayed oh he had a hundred he had a hundred hundred vision that's how he saw the the Romans enduring at a hundred hundred Jesus lover said this is ridiculous if you believe x-ray vision existed during Christ's resurrection what I don't understand that comment Tommy comic books are gob are garbage okay this debate seems pointless I I have to admit I read that comment I was kind of feeling that way at some point Rosemary I'm this is painful man this is idiotic this is just this is what we get in the comment section oh then someone said Shelley's getting is a kick so bad that Anderson had to bail him out not a good look for the new I have be you know I mean I don't mind pastor Anderson sharing his opinion but at the same time like I just I just didn't really agree with you know his his counterpoint but you know that's for him to decide let's see I was kind of curious if we had any comments during the section where he was describing the Melchizedek period but it doesn't seem it seems like everybody's kind of fighting religion is weird I don't know who that is okay it doesn't even go all the way back for me okay yes I only got the last hour guys so I just wanted to get some comments out there all right temple 0 is the first curry house that's why Shelley hates it I mean I don't know that seems plausible the rumors you've heard about Tucson's Mexican food is true Corbin Russell confirms Corbin Russell got you all right so thanks again to our audience thanks again for tuning in to the Baptist bias we are going to have a stream this Saturday shout out for the mega marathon email pastor Thompson or email us if you want some information about the mega marathon event that we're going to be having I'm really looking forward doing the soul winning on Saturday we're going to be going to a new area and so excited to get the results in I know that pastor Matthew Stuckey is doing a big big push here in the Philippines he's got a lot of people doing a lot of things shout out to the Philippines I'm betting they're gonna have huge huge numbers and so I'm really excited about the work that's being going on and you know I know this subject is kind of dull and kind of dense and people don't really like it and I get it so hopefully we'll move on from this subject I feel like we've ran in the ground you know the balls in their court let them make the super compelling arguments and the super compelling videos I don't see it I think it makes no sense the traditional amount makes perfect sense this book is not compelling whatsoever and so you know what god bless you guys thanks for tuning in if you don't have it now you need to get it the Baptist bias you