Archives‎ > ‎

The Anti-Christ Delayed, from Peter Myers

The Anti-Christ Delayed - Israel Shamir; More on the site of the Jewish Temple & Roman FortressThis newsletter is at More on the site of the Jewish Temple(2) The Arrival of the Anti-Christ, Delayed - by Israel Shamir(3) Antonia: The Fortress Jerusalem Forgot, by Marilyn Sams(4) The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, by Marilyn Sams (2015, about US$80)(5) Josephus on Demolition of Jerusalem: 'Caesar resolved to leave there, as a guard, the tenth legion'(6) Josephus on Antonia Fortress: 'there always lay in this tower a Roman legion' (5000 soldiers)(7) Josephus quotes Eleazar (Masada leader): Jerusalem 'demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing but
 ... the camp of those that hath destroyed it'
Reader request: Roland Wallis" <> is seeking a copy of "A correct transcript of Pilate's court", by W. D. Mahan, first edition ~1879. Also "Pontius Pilate's Account of the Condemnation of Jesus Christ, and his own Mental Sufferings", ~1842.These books are commonly dismissed as fake; Graham Hancock has this discussion:,257181,257398(1) More on the site of the Jewish Temple- by Peter Myers, June 10, 2019When AIPAC is accused of turning the USA into a ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), the response is, often, that Christian Fundamentalists are the ones really running the show.BUT the Calendar of the US House of Reps features more Jewish holy days than Christian ones.In the House of Representatives Calendar for 2017, 8 Jewish days are listed, but only 2 Christian ones (Xmas & Easter Sunday). GOOD FRIDAY is not listed.April 201710 Passover Begins at Sundown16 Easter Sunday18 Passover Ends at SundownSeptember 201720 Rosh Hashanah Begins at Sundown22 Rosh Hashanah Ends at Sundown29 Yom Kippur Begins at Sundown30 Yom Kippur Ends at SundownDecember 201712 Hanukkah Begins at Sundown20 Hanukkah Ends at Sundown25 ChristmasSee it at have recently found that Christian Fundamentalists diverge from Orthodox Jews on a very important matter, the site of the Temple.Orthodox Jews want to pull down the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque, to build the 3rd Temple; from where, they believe, the Messiah will rule the world.But Christians say that the Temple was built over Gihon Spring, in the City of David, 200m downhill from the Western Wall, which is really a remnant of Antonia Fortress, where the Roman 10th Legion was based.Gihon Spring was the only permanent water in the area; and water was an essential requirement for purification rituals at the Temple.A Roman Legion at that time comprised 5,000 soldiers plus thousands of support staff. It was positioned overlooking the Temple so that the army could quash rebellions; two ramps provided easy access.The Fortress would have been much bigger than the Temple. Thus, the 'Temple Mount' is wrongly named; and the Jewish Temple can be built without demolishing the Moslem shrines, saving us a World War.However, the Orthodox Jews do not accept the evidence from historical authors (including the Bible itself).The issue has now been taken up by Popular Archaeology magazine; and two books are available - The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot, by Ernest L. Martin (2000), and The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, by Marilyn Sams (2015, about US$80).I would like to see the Jews build their Temple, so long as it is on the original site (Gihon spring), and the Dome and Al Aqsa are untouched.That way, everyone can be happy.But what about the Messiah, you may object? Wouldn't the rebuilt Temple lead to the inauguration of some despot as the Jewish Messiah, who would then try to rule the world and impose Noahide laws on us all?Well, I don't think that's going to happen. I'll call their bluff.Remember Nostradamus' writings about La Synagogue Sterile:La synagogue sterile sans nul fruit.Sera receu entre les infideles,De Babylon la fille du porsuitMisere et triste lui trenchera les aislesThe sterile synagogue, bearing no fruitWill be taken by the infidelsThe daughter of the persecuted BabylonianMiserable and sad, her wings will be clipped.(2) The Arrival of the Anti-Christ, Delayed - by Israel ShamirFrom: "israel shamir [shamireaders]" Arrival of the Anti-Christ, DelayedISRAEL SHAMIRJUNE 9, 2019If the Jews have designs for world domination, their plans have suffered a setback due to petty rivalry of Israeli politicians. Now this minor setback threatens to upset the whole master plan. For the want of a nail, the kingdom is lost. A small mistake can have great consequences; so said <> Eugene Scribe of a glass of water that it had ended a too-long war.The ‘minor setback’ was the failure of Bibi Netanyahu to form his new government after successful election campaign. ‘The great consequences’ are the collapse of the ambitious Kushner/Trump’s Deal of the Century. Russia’s alliance with Israel looks less certain; and beyond that, the coronation of the Messiah, the Jewish king and the world’s foremost spiritual authority seems to be postponed indefinitely. Like in a domino effect, these plans began to fail, one after another.Speaking to the nation of Israel in a dramatic broadcast and acknowledging his defeat after the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) had dissolved itself at Netanyahu’s insistence, the Eternal Leader Benjamin Netanyahu revealed the plans of the Trilateral Meeting of Russia, the US and Israel’s security supremoes in Jerusalem. The White House <> confirmed it, too. This unprecedented meeting was supposed to become Netanyahu’s great achievement, crowning his re-election for the nth time and confirming his international status.Symbolically, this meeting would signify a special standing of Israel with the two superpowers; Israel’s unique ability to bring forth the mutually hostile Russia and America, like the tamer who leads a lion and a tiger into the arena. Even for our profane and sober age, such a meeting means a lot, a lot more than we would like to think of.In the Middle Ages, when people had fewer reservations in delving into esoteric, the supposed agenda for the grand masters of leading Christian orders meeting their heathen counterpart, say the Old Man of the Mountain, in Jerusalem (of all places!) would definitely include kissing <> Baphomet’s anus. Such a meeting with the Jew would imply their desire to crown the Antichrist. In both cases, they would end up at the stake in front of Notre-Dame-de-Paris, as Jacques de Molay did.And if the medieval man would learn of the recent <> arson of the venerated cathedral, he would consider the case closed, even for the most ardent sceptic. Clearly the turncoat knights, heirs to the Templars, attempted to establish the eternal Jewish dominion over Christians, a Christian sage would say; while his Jewish contemporary would hail the meeting as a prefiguration of the forthcoming advent of the Shepherd-King to lead the people of Israel and the obedient Gentiles.Nowadays, in the age of rationality and hate laws, such hurtful assessments are forbidden, but our souls are old-fashioned Jungians and they still interpret thunder and lightning as signs from above. The symbols have a meaning and carry a message, whether we like it or not. If you are conditioned to reject any spiritual interpretation, think of <> NLP, Neuro-Linguistic Programming of the Bible, the book you and your parents and grandparents have been exposed to. "A meeting in Jerusalem" are trigger words, not only to believers, but also to all-denying crass materialists. In plain words, prophecies we are aware of tend to be self-fulfilling.Messianic expectations run high in Jerusalem. A few days ago, when the Israeli Jerusalem Day (the anniversary of the city’s conquest in 1967) coincided with Muslim Laylat al-Qadr (the most important feast at the end of Ramadan), the Jews went to the courtyard of al-Aqsa Mosque to pray there. Usually Jews aren’t allowed to enter the courtyard in the last week of Ramadan. After skirmishes, Israeli soldiers raided the Mosque. "Hopefully soon, we will pray there, in our sacred place", <> said Miri Regev, a religious Zionist and the popular minister of culture in Netanyahu’s government. These words were understood as expectation of the Mosque’s takeover, its destruction and erection of the Jewish temple in its stead.The Trilateral Meeting fits very well into the scheme of these expectations. An open public meeting of this unprecedented sort will be interpreted as the superpowers’ support for the takeover and of the Gentiles’ submission. The US representative at the meeting is Mr John Bolton, a zealous Zionist, a man obsessed with his adoration of Jews, who is likely to say anything to please his Israeli audience. He is known to have a serious influence on President Trump, and he has been described as his ‘minder’, selected by the spooks to control the flamboyant President.The Russian representative is Mr Nikolai Patrushev, an old friend of Mr Putin. He inherited the top position in Russian Intelligence (FSB) after Putin left it to begin his ascent to the presidency. He is considered a dull man of limited vision and imagination who usually reads his speeches verbatim. He is not known for improvising, fast thinking or negotiating abilities. This is good. An improviser can be carried away when it is the last thing that is needed. Patrushev will stick to the script, his colleagues say. In the Russian Foreign Office, the diplomats are unhappy with the choice, but they would be unhappy with anybody who is not a career diplomat.Israelis <> guess and hope the meeting could lead to major re-alliance of Russia, to Moscow’s shifting to the Israeli-US side against Iran. This is extremely unlikely. Russia is friendly to Israel, and it wants to make friends with the US, while observing its own national interests.Last week, at the ‘Russian Davos’, the St Petersburg Economic Forum, President Putin <> reiterated the main points of his memorable <> Munich Speech. He voiced seven complaints, leaving no doubt he is unhappy with American heavy-handedness, with US attempts to weaponise the dollar, Google, Facebook and knowhow as in the case of Huawei. "States that previously advocated the principles of freedom of trade, fair and open competition, have started speaking the language of trade wars and sanctions, blatant economic raiding, arm twisting, intimidation, eliminating competitors by so-called non-market methods," – he said. These are not the terms of a man who is waiting for a cue to join the US entourage.Still, there are other, less-pleasant signs.- The ‘Russian Bolton’, Mr Eugene Satanovsky, the head of a pro-Israeli think tank, a former head of a Zionist Jewish body and a frequent commentator on Russian TV has been appointed an adviser to Russian Defence Minister Mr Sergey Shoygu. His nomination came directly from the Kremlin and surprised ministry officials.- A prominent Russian churchman, Fr Chaplin, expressed his satisfaction with Israeli control of Jerusalem in a column in the <> Nezavisimaya Gazeta.- In the same time, Russian S-300 missiles did not oppose Israeli bombing runs in Syria.It appears the Israelis had lured the Russians into the ambitious meeting by promising to take the US sanctions off the Russians’ back. It is doubtful Israel can deliver on such a promise to start with. Putin is a very experienced statesman, and he won’t accept a US promise in lieu of full delivery. Not after the failure of the Trump-Kim Hanoi talks, and not before that, either. Anyway, Putin would like to be un-sanctioned, but not at the price the US demands.Israelis want to neutralise Iran, as the Islamic Republic is the only remaining defender of al-Aqsa Mosque. Amman, Riyadh and other Arab capitals would not fight Israel if Netanyahu were to destroy the Mosque. The Palestinians will fight, but they have no weapons. The last Jewish victim of a Palestinian attack was wounded by scissors. Iran has weapons and cares about the Mosque. Can Netanyahu convince Putin to neutralise Iran, or pressure Iran to stay away from Palestine? It would be a major feat worthy of a magician.And now we come to the important point. Instead of receiving two superpower envoys in splendour as [almost] the King of Jews, Bibi Netanyahu will meet them as the head of a transitional government facing new elections and a possible trial. In such a status, it is hard to convince your banker to give you a loan to buy a new car, let alone convincing Putin to switch allegiance and Trump to deny Christ.At the same time, the baby-faced son-in-law Kushner had planned to seal his (and Trump’s) Deal of the Century. Even an impregnable Trump and unassailable Netanyahu would have great difficulty in pulling off this trick. Trump facing impeachment and Bibi facing elections and police investigation have no chance. Probably it is good, too. Russia and China decided to stay away. Mahmud Abbas, the PNA President, refused it, too, and this fraud’s flop will preclude Palestine from being sanctioned.The intended deal had not been officially disclosed; all we have is a <> leak in a newspaper close to Bibi Netanyahu and financed by Sheldon Adelson saying it was leaked from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Bear with me, gentle reader, and suspend your disbelief! Though this bit of daydreaming looks like a paper written by a high school kid during summer vacation, it is not particularly good-natured.It says the US will kill (that’s right, k_i_l_l) Palestinian leaders who won’t accept it, but before that, it will sanction Palestine to death and forbid all its allies to buy from, sell to, or donate anything to Palestinians.The deal envisages a permanently disarmed Palestinian entity that will pay Israel for its "protection". All Jewish settlements remain inviolable, and are considered a part of Israel. Israel will control every arrival and departure from the entity called "New Palestine". Jerusalem stays Jewish. Gaza will be connected to the West Bank by a 30-km-long bridge under Israeli control. This bridge will be paid for by … China. A desalination plant for Gaza will be paid by … Japan. If not for the threat to kill the disobedient Arabs, it would be plainly preposterous. So the demise of this bizarre ‘deal’ is not to be regretted.President Trump understood that with Bibi facing trial and re-election campaign there is no chance to advance on this project – or any other project. "Israel is all messed up in their election," Trump told reporters. "They have to get their act together." "Bibi got elected and now they have to go through the process again? We’re not happy about that," Trump <> said.Thus, the two great plans of Bibi: the trilateral meeting in Jerusalem and Deal of the Century, went down when Bibi failed to form a government. These nasty plans weren’t aborted by the Israeli Left, nor by the American alt-Right, nor by Russian Orthodox Christians. One man did it: Avigdor Lieberman, an Israeli politician, the head of a small party representing Russian Israelis. It is difficult to like him, but he sabotaged or at least postponed the advent of the Jewish Messiah, a.k.a. the Antichrist.I’d compare him with Gollum, the revolting and treacherous creature that followed Frodo in the Lord of the Rings. When Frodo made his mad attempt to claim the Ring for himself, Gollum saved the quest. He bit off Frodo’s finger and fell with the Ring into the Fire River of Orodruin. Even Gollum may have something yet to do, Gandalf concluded.Lieberman wrecked Netanyahu’s coalition building not for any good and decent reason, not out of compassion for the Palestinians: other way around, he wanted to bomb Gaza to smithereens; not out of hatred of corruption as he is no less corrupt than Netanyahu; his proclaimed reason (he claimed he opposed the dominance of religious Jews) does not withstand examination, as he has voted with the religious parties throughout all his career even against the interests of the Russian Israelis who gave him their votes. In the end he was offered everything he could want, but he insisted on a demand his voters didn’t give a fig for: let all students of Jewish Law be drafted into the army. The army didn’t want them, the Russian voters didn’t care about it, and the young Jews were adamant and ready to die rather than join the army.He did it out of sheer spite. Netanyahu did not treat him with due respect; he felt himself used and under-appreciated. In the end, he refused all tempting offers of Netanyahu and fell into Orodruin together with the Knesset.This sheer spite seems to be a Jewish thing. The Second Temple was destroyed out of sheer spite, (????? ????) the Talmud (Yoma 9b) says. R. Yohanan (BT Gittin 55b) spreads the whole story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, whose wanton enmity caused the war with Rome and eventual destruction of the Temple. R. Yohanan b. Torta (PT, Yoma 4b (1:1) improved on them saying the Second Temple was destroyed due to love of money and wanton hatred.Love of money and wanton hatred among Israeli leaders has played out again, arresting a very dangerous development in the nick of time. Probably the building of the Third Temple has been delayed, as has happened many times in history. The most-memorable occasion took place in the days of Julian the Apostate, who allowed the Jews to rebuild the Temple; they began to build it but an earthquake demolished the unfinished building. Lieberman has been less spectacular than the earthquake, but equally effective.For readers dissatisfied with the simple explanation of sheer spite, I can offer another version rumoured in Israel. They say Lieberman did it following wily Putin’s orders. Putin was not keen to be pushed by Netanyahu and Trump to act against Iran; he didn’t want to quarrel with these two leaders either. He activated Lieberman and torpedoed the new Netanyahu government. Se non è vero, è ben trovato. If it is not true, it is a good story.Israel Shamir can be reached at Antonia: The Fortress Jerusalem Forgot, by Marilyn Sams 2015/2016Antonia: The Fortress Jerusalem ForgotBy Marilyn SamsThu, Dec 17, 2015A controversial theory challenges long-held tradition and scholarship on the Fortress of Antonia, with game-changing implications for the location of the Jerusalem temple of biblical times.Through this location passed, according to ancient sources, a veritable "who’s who" of the ancient, classical world: Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt…the Roman generals Titus and Pompey…Herod the Great…his son Antipater…Mark Antony …Pontius Pilate…Jesus of Nazareth…the Apostle Paul…the historian Josephus…the Roman emperor Hadrian…and tens of thousands of Roman legionnaires. Yet why have historians given Fort Antonia—the great Roman fortress built at this location and hosted by Rome’s client king Herod the Great—only glancing and foot-noted references? How does history simply "lose" one of the great architectural achievements of the ancient world? And why have the drawings of contemporary biblical archaeologists repeatedly represented Antonia as a relatively modest, annex-sized building positioned at the northwest corner of the Haram es Sharif, commonly known as the "Temple Mount?"The story begins with Josephus, the first century Romano-Jewish scholar and historian, who explains in his writings that Herod the Great expanded the "Baris" (the Greek word for "tower"), built by John Hyrcanus, the famous second century B.C.E. Jewish leader, to replace the citadel which had formerly protected the temple in the City of David (pre-Babylonian Jerusalem). Josephus effuses about its splendor and how much Herod, a prolific spender, dispensed for its construction. Herod dubbed the Roman camp "Fort Antonia" after his friend, Mark Antony, and it assured his reputation as a master builder by its unparalleled magnificence. It must have been about 40 acres in size, like other typical Roman camps capable of housing a legion of 5,000-6,000 soldiers. Josephus described it as being "erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height" on a "great precipice." It had "all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps, such that it had all the conveniences of cities and seemed like it was composed of several cities." With 60-foot walls, four towers (the southeast being 105 feet high), and smooth stones installed on its slopes, it dominated the temple to its south, ready to fend off the most formidable attacks. When any trouble brewed in the temple, or to keep peace during the festivals, Roman soldiers poured out of Fort Antonia onto two 600-foot aerial bridges, connecting it to the roofs of the temple porticoes, whereupon they dispersed around its four-furlong perimeter. If need be, the soldiers could rain their arrows down upon the people in the outer courts or descend via staircases to perform hand-to-hand combat.Yet despite these informative descriptions from Josephus, who personally participated in the siege of Titus, the current models of Fort Antonia approved by the mainstream traditionalist scholars and historians are typified by the one illustrated below:In most respects, the traditionalist model does not match up with Josephus’s descriptions. For example, it is not laid out as a camp, but does look like a castle. Josephus’s account encompassed both descriptions. It does not have the size of "several cities," nor does it look like a city. It does not exhibit the "magnificence" a huge expenditure would suggest. It does not feature slopes which would accommodate slippery tiles. It does not "dominate" the temple. It is not separated from the temple by a distance of 600 feet, and there are no aerial roadways connecting it to the temple. However, the traditionalist model does show four towers, one higher at the southeast corner. Archaeologically, the northwest and northeast corners do show signs of towers. However, Herod’s temple foundations did not have any towers. But most significantly, the major problem with the current traditionalist models is how they do not resemble a typical Roman camp in size, shape, or function, while the 36-acre walled edifice does.After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem during the First Jewish-Roman War in 70 C.E., they turned their sights on Masada, Herod’s magnificent fortified palatial complex high atop a plateau in the Judaean Desert overlooking the Dead Sea. Josephus quotes Eleazar, the Jewish leader of Masada, as trying to convince his people to commit suicide rather than being taken captive by the Romans upon the Jewish defenders’ impending defeat. Eleazar asks them:"Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very foundations, and has nothing but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those that have destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins…And I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our holy temple dug up after so profane a manner" (War VII, 9, 376, 379, Whiston translation).{The Wars of the Jews, book 7, ch.8, verses 375-9}(4) The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, by Marilyn Sams (2015, about US$80) Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, by Marilyn SamsEDITORIAL REVIEW:This volume adds new sources and insights to the work of Ernest L. Martin and contains over 375 descriptions of Jerusalem’s southeastern hill (Mount Zion), the temple mount in the City of David, and the tower of Antonia (today called the "temple mount").Melchizedek built his temple in Salem, Jacob erected his pillar at the same location, and the borders of Benjamin and Judah, home to the temple, divided the southeastern hill.Solomon erected the temple in the City of David before breaking down its northern wall to install Pharoah’s daughter in her palace (3 Kings 2: 35, Septuagint version).Josephus described the hill of the temple as descending by degrees toward the east parts of the city, but there has never been a city on the east side of the alleged temple mount. A host of other descriptions (with references) place the temple’s east wall in the Kidron valley, in the middle of the city, and over the Gihon Spring, whereas the alleged temple mount is north of the city, its east wall is at the top of the hill, and there is no accessible spring within its precincts.It does not match Josephus’s descriptions of the temple’s dimensions, walls, gates, height, position, or finished state. Its remarkable square rock (under the Dome), is never mentioned with reference to the temple, but is for the Roman Camp, which the Byzantine Christians identified as the "Praetorium" and the site of the Church of St. Sophia (which Caliph al-Malik destroyed to build the Dome of the Rock). Indeed, Eutychius stated the Christians had never built on the temple ruins site and Rabbi David Kimchi said the same for the "nations."At Masada, eye-witness Eleazar described the Roman camp as the only monument remaining after the 70 A.D. destruction. Today, the alleged temple mount is the only surviving monument from the destruction and is the Roman camp. Archaeological findings relating to the issues are dispersed throughout, but two specific chapters on the alleged temple mount’s archaeology and the archaeology of the City of David are included. A list of the most relevant descriptions is given at the end.A review of the book by Margaret Barker, UK scholar and author of 29 books states: "Marilyn Sams brings together a vast array of ancient evidence to argue that the Jerusalem Temple was not on the Temple Mount."CUSTOMER REVIEW:robert d ellsworth5.0 out of 5 starsHer grasp and understanding of the complex topography of Jerusalem is also amazing.I was a decades-long associate of Dr Ernest Martin, whose book The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, is credited by author Marilyn Sams as her starting point in investigating the question of the actual location of the Solomonic and Herodian Temples. Having been familiar with the basic tenets of this debate since Dr; Martin first published on this question in 1998, I can honestly say that Ms Sams grasp of the question, and attention to the archaeological and historical detail involved, is simply unsurpassed. Her knowledge and understanding of the complex topography of Jerusalem is also amazing. In addition, she has researched this subject to such an extent that she provides a great number of new sources, and indeed, new arguments, that favor Dr. Martin's conclusions. The fact that the book is thus far only available on Kindle is unfortunate, and I hope the author has plans to publish a hard copy version as well. Bob Ellsworth, Pasadena, California Josephus on Demolition of Jerusalem: 'Caesar resolved to leave there, as a guard, the tenth legion'The Wars of the Jews, book 5, ch.1, verses 1-5Chapter 1. How The Entire City Of Jerusalem Was Demolished, Excepting Three Towers; And How Titus Commended His Soldiers In A Speech Made To Them, And Distributed Rewards To Them And Then Dismissed Many Of Them.1. NOW as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.7.5. But Caesar resolved to leave there, as a guard, the tenth legion, with certain troops of horsemen, and companies of footmen. So, having entirely completed this war, he was desirous to commend his whole army, on account of the great exploits they had performed, and to bestow proper rewards on such as had signalized themselves therein.(6) Josephus on Antonia Fortress: 'there always lay in this tower a Roman legion' (5000 soldiers) Fortress of AntoniaBy Steve Rudd{photo} A model of the Fortress of Antonia as described by Josephus. (Wars 5.238-247)Antonia's Fort was located south of a moat and on a rock 25 meters high. It was located exactly where the Dome of the Rock is today. The Temple would therefore be located 17 meters below the Al-Kas fountain.Joesphus describes Antonia's fortress as pictured above. Josephus' dimensions are 115 m from East to West, Western side 35 m and Eastern side 42 m, with four towers. The rock on which the fortress was built was 50 cubits high (22-31 m). The height of the fortress itself was 40 cubits (18-25 m.) and it had 4 towers, one in each corner. The height of three of the towers was 50 cubits and the fourth tower was 70 cubits:"Now, as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock, of fifty cubits in height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein he demonstrated his natural magnanimity. (239) In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament, and that anyone who would either try to get up or to go down it, might not be able to hold his feet upon it. (240) Next to this, and before you come to the edifice of the tower itself, there was a wall three cubits high; but within that wall all the space of the tower of Antonia itself was built upon, to the height, of forty cubits. {60 feet; 18.2 metres) (241) The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence, it seemed a palace; (242) and as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits {105 feet, 33m} high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; (243) but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guard (244) (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations; (245) for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; and in that tower were the guards of those three. There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod's palace; (246) but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower of Antonia, as we have already told you; and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood, was the highest of these three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered the sight of the temple on the north. (247) And this shall suffice at present to have spoken about the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to myself to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere." (Josephus, Wars 5.238-247){The Wars of the Jews, book 5, ch.5, verses 238-247}Titus gained access to the temple through the fortress of Antonia:"Now, when affairs within the city were in this posture, Titus went round the city, on the outside with some chosen horsemen, and looked about for a proper place where he might make an impression upon the walls: (259) but as he was in doubt where he could possibly make an attack on any side (for the place was no way accessible where the valleys were, and on the other side the first wall appeared too strong to be shaken by the engines), he thereupon thought it best to make his assault upon the monument of John the high priest, (260) for there it was that the first fortification was lower, and the second was not joined to it, the builders neglecting to build the wall strong where the new city was not much inhabited; here also was an easy passage to the third wall, through which he thought to take the upper city, and, through the tower of Antonia, the temple itself." (Josephus, Wars 5.257-260){The Wars of the Jews, book 5, ch.6, verses 258-260}Temple located 17 meters below the Al-Kas fountain: Josephus tells us that the Antonia fortress was built on a rock 25 meters above the temple mount floor platform. The Antonia fortress was located where the Dome of the Rock is and the Temple was located where the El-Kas fountain is. The very rock that the Dome of the Rock rests on nicely harmonizes with Joesphus, being about 25 meters high, on which the Fort of Antonia was built. So using the simple math calculations we must lower the temple platform at the El Kas fountain where Herod built the Jewish temple, by about 22 meters. This is because the El Kas fountain is about 5 meters below the dome of the Rock platform. Then we must add the height of the rock under the dome (about 2 meters) to get from the top of the rock. Josephus said the top o the rock, on which the Antonia Fort was built was 25 meters above the temple floor. 25 m - 2m = 23m means the current floor of the Dome of the Rock is 23 meters above the temple floor in Jesus' day. Then we must subtract the 5 meters of stairs from the Dome platform to reach the level of the Al-Kas fountain. 23 - 5 = 17 meters. So standing beside the Al-Kas fountain, we the floor of Herod's temple, according to Josephus, was 17 meters lower.Most wrongly locate Antonia's Fortress at modern El Omariah school and the Jewish Temple at the Dome of the Rock. A simple survey reveals that from "rock to rock" the height difference is only 7 meters. This creates a contradiction with Josephus who said the temple floor was 25 meters below the top of the rock on which the Fortress of Antonia was built. The rock on which the El Omariah school stands, is only 7 meters high. Since Josephus says the rock on which the Antonia fortress stood was 25 feet above the temple mount floor, (25-7 = 18 meters) doing the reverse math, we must lower the temple platform by 18 meters if it was located at the El Omariah school. But this is impossible, since the temple cannot be located 17 meters below the rock under the dome. However, we can dig down 17 meters below the Al-Kas fountain.Strabo and Josephus describe the moat that was north of the Fortress. This clearly places fort Antonia where the Dome of the Rock is.Strabo in 15 AD and Josephus in 100 AD describes in detail the moat or fosse that was filled during the attack by Pompey on the temple in 63 BC. Both describe a large moat that had been cut out of rock on the north side of the temple. The fosse was 250 feet wide, fifty feet wide and 60 feet deep. The Jews cut a suspended bridge that spanned this moat, and connected the temple with the city. Pompey fills in this fosse and attacks the temple on the Sabbath. Strangely, the Jews for fear of breaking the 4th commandment, would not work at protecting against the attack. Perhaps we understand their thinking when they accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing a lame man. Then Josephus describes how Herod in 38 BC, attacked the temple from the north, in the same way as Pompey. Next, Josephus says that Titus attacked the Temple from the north by filling in the moat with dirt up to 12 miles away.Finally, we have Charles Wilson in 1886 AD, commenting on Josephus' description of this fosse (moat) and how it is within the north section of the temple mount based upon his own surveys of the geography.There were stairs that led from Antonia's Fort down to the temple with no indication of a moat between the fort and the temple, as commonly but incorrectly pictured: "but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both" (Josephus, Wars 5.243)Strabo's account of how Pompey attached {sic} the temple in 63 BC by first filling in the moat north of the Temple:"At any rate, when now Judaea was under the rule of tyrants, Alexander was first to declare himself king instead of priest; and both Hyrcanus and Aristobulus were sons of his; and when they were at variance about the empire, Pompey went over and overthrew them and rased their fortifications, and in particular took Jerusalem itself by force; for it was a rocky and well-watered fortress; and though well supplied with water inside, its outside territory was wholly without water; and it had a trench cut in rock, sixty feet in depth and two hundred and sixty feet in breadth; and, from the stone that had been hewn out, the wall of the temple was fenced with towers. Pompey seized the city, it is said, after watching for the day of fasting, when the Judaeans were abstaining from all work; he filled up the trench and threw ladders across it; moreover, he gave orders to rase all the walls and, so far as he could, destroyed the haunts of robbers and the treasure-holds of the tyrants. Two of these were situated on the passes leading to Hiericus, I mean Threx and Taurus, and others were Alexandrium and Hyrcanium and Machaerus and Lysias and those in the neighbourhood of Philadelphia and Scythopolis in the neighbourhood of Galilaea." (Strabo, Geography 16:2:40, 15 AD)Josephus' account of how Pompey attached {sic} the temple in 63 BC by first filling in the moat north of the Temple:"At this Pompey was very angry, and put Aristobulus into the prison, and came himself to the city, which was strong on every side, excepting the north, which was not so well fortified, for there was a broad and deep ditch, that encompassed the city, and included within it the temple, which was itself encompassed about with a very strong stone wall. (58) Now there was a sedition of the men that were within the city, who did not agree what was to be done in their present circumstances, while some thought it best to deliver up the city to Pompey; but Aristobulus's party exhorted them to shut the gates, because he was kept in prison. Now these prevented the others, and seized upon the temple, and cut off the bridge which reached from it to the city, and prepared themselves to abide a siege; (59) but the others admitted Pompey's army in, and delivered up both the city and the king's palace to him. So Pompey sent his lieutenant Piso with an army, and placed garrisons both in the city and in the palace, to secure them, and fortified the houses that joined to the temple, and all those which were more distant and without it. (60) And in the first place, he offered terms of accommodation to those that were within; but when they would not comply with what was desired, he encompassed all the places thereabout with a wall, wherein Hyrcanus did gladly assist him on all occasions; but Pompey pitched his camp within [the wall], on the north part of the temple, where it was most practicable; (61) but even on that side there were great towers, and a ditch had been dug, and a deep valley begirt it round about, for on the parts towards the city were precipices, and the bridge on which Pompey had gotten in was broken down. However, a bank was raised day by day, with a great deal of labor, while the Romans cut down materials for it from the places round about; (62) and when this bank was sufficiently raised, and the ditch filled up, though but poorly, by reason of its immense depth, he brought his mechanical engines, and battering-rams from Tyre, and placing them on the bank, he battered the temple with the stones that were thrown against it, and had it not been our practice, from the days of our forefathers, to rest on the seventh day, this bank could never have been perfected, by reason of the opposition the Jews would have made; for though our law gives us leave then to defend ourselves against those that begin to fight with us and assault us, yet does it not permit us to meddle with our enemies while they do anything else.(Josephus, Ant 14.57-63){Antiquities of the Jews, book 14, ch. 4, verses 57-63}Herod attacked the temple in 38 BC, from the north, just like Pompey:"When the rigor of winter was over, Herod removed his army, and came near to Jerusalem, and pitched his camp hard by the city. Now this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; (466) and as he removed his camp, and came near that part of the wall where it could be most easily assaulted, he pitched that camp before the temple, intending to make his attacks in the same manner as did Pompey. So he encompassed the place with three bulwarks, and erected towers, and employed a great many hands about the work, and cut down the trees that were round about the city" (Josephus, Ant 14.464-466){Antiquities of the Jews, book 14, ch. 15, verses 465-6}Titus attached the temple in 70 AD, in exactly the same way as Pompey did in 63 BC by filling in the fosse with dirt from up to 12 miles away:"In the meantime, the rest of the Roman army had, in seven days' time, overthrown [some] foundations of the tower of Antonia, and had made a ready and broad way to the temple. (150) Then did the legions come near the first court, and began to raise their banks. The one bank was over against the northwest corner of the inner temple, another was at the northern edifice which was between the two gates; (151) and of the other two, one was at the western cloister of the outer court of the temple; the other against its northern cloister. However, these works were thus far advanced by the Romans, not without great pains and difficulty, and particularly by being obliged to bring their materials from the distance of a hundred furlongs [12 miles].(Josephus, Wars 6.148-151){Wars of the Jews, book 6, ch. 8, verses 149-151}Finally, we have Charles Wilson in 1886 AD, commenting on Josephus' description of this fosse (moat) and how it is within the north section of the temple mount. It is marked as #16 in the 3D map below. Obviously then, the Fortress of Antonia was located at #12 on their map, even though they placed the temple at #12:"We see also that the northern side of the enclosure extends to the edge of the valley of Kedron, and that outside there is an immense fosse, now called the Pool of Bethesda, and also the ravine which has been described as being on the northern quarter of the Temple. It would seem, therefore, to be impossible to resist the conclusion, that the northern front of the Haram is identical in position with that of the northern front of the enclosure of the Temple, as it was built by Herod, for the description would apply to no other position for it."(Ordinance Survey of Jerusalem by Captain Charles W. Wilson, R. E., 1886 AD)(7) Josephus quotes Eleazar (Masada leader): Jerusalem 'demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing but ... the camp of those that hath destroyed it'Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, book 7, ch.8, verses 320, 327-8, 371-388Eleazar, the leader of the Jewish rebels at Masada, says that, putting down the Jewish revolt, the Romans destroyed the City of Jerusalem including the Temple, and left only their own Fortress Antonia (vv. 375-6):7.320 However, neither did Eleazar once think of flying away, nor would he permit any one else to do so; but when he saw their wall burned down by the fire, and could devise no other way of escaping, or room for their further courage, and setting before their eyes what the Romans would do to them, their children, and their wives, if they got them into their power, he consulted about having them all slain.7.327 It had been proper indeed for us to have conjectured at the purpose of God much sooner, and at the very first, when we were so desirous of defending our liberty, and when we received such sore treatment from one another, and worse treatment from our enemies, and to have been sensible that the same God, who had of old taken the Jewish nation into his favor, had now condemned them to destruction;7.328 for had he either continued favorable, or been but in a lesser degree displeased with us, he had not overlooked the destruction of so many men, or delivered his most holy city to be burnt and demolished by our enemies.7. 370 For we had arms, and walls, and fortresses so prepared as not to be easily taken, and courage not to be moved by any dangers in the cause of liberty, which encouraged us all to revolt from the Romans.7. 371 But then these advantages sufficed us but for a short time, and only raised our hopes, while they really appeared to be the origin of our miseries; for all we had hath been taken from us, and all hath fallen under our enemies, as if these advantages were only to render their victory over us the more glorious, and were not disposed for the preservation of those by whom these preparations were made.7. 372 And as for those that are already dead in the war, it is reasonable we should esteem them blessed, for they are dead in defending, and not in betraying their liberty; but as to the multitude of those that are now under the Romans, who would not pity their condition? and who would not make haste to die, before he would suffer the same miseries with them?7. 373 Some of them have been put upon the rack, and tortured with fire and whippings, and so died. Some have been half devoured by wild beasts, and yet have been reserved alive to be devoured by them a second time, in order to afford laughter and sport to our enemies;7. 374 and such of those as are alive still are to be looked on as the most miserable, who, being so desirous of death, could not come at it.7.375 And where is now that great city, the metropolis of the Jewish nation, which was fortified by so many walls round about, which had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly contain the instruments prepared for the war, and which had so many ten thousands of men to fight for it?7.376 Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins;7. 377 some unfortunate old men also lie upon the ashes of the temple, and a few women are there preserved alive by the enemy, for our bitter shame and reproach.7. 378 Now who is there that revolves these things in his mind, and yet is able to bear the sight of the sun, though he might live out of danger? Who is there so much his country's enemy, or so unmanly, and so desirous of living, as not to repent that he is still alive?7. 379 And I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our holy temple dug up after so profane a manner.7. 380 But since we had a generous hope that deluded us, as if we might perhaps have been able to avenge ourselves on our enemies on that account, though it be now become vanity, and hath left us alone in this distress, let us make haste to die bravely. Let us pity ourselves, our children, and our wives while it is in our own power to show pity to them;7. 381 for we were born to die, [Note] as well as those were whom we have begotten; nor is it in the power of the most happy of our race to avoid it.7. 382 But for abuses, and slavery, and the sight of our wives led away after an ignominious manner, with their children, these are not such evils as are natural and necessary among men; although such as do not prefer death before those miseries, when it is in their power so to do, must undergo even them, on account of their own cowardice.7. 383 We revolted from the Romans with great pretensions to courage; and when, at the very last, they invited us to preserve ourselves, we would not comply with them.7. 384 Who will not, therefore, believe that they will certainly be in a rage at us, in case they can take us alive? Miserable will then be the young men who will be strong enough in their bodies to sustain many torments! miserable also will be those of elder years, who will not be able to bear those calamities which young men might sustain!7. 385 One man will be obliged to hear the voice of his son implore help of his father, when his hands are bound.7. 386 But certainly our hands are still at liberty, and have a sword in them; let them then be subservient to us in our glorious design; let us die before we become slaves under our enemies, and let us go out of the world, together with our children and our wives, in a state of freedom.7. 387 This it is that our laws command us to do this it is that our wives and children crave at our hands; nay, God himself hath brought this necessity upon us; while the Romans desire the contrary, and are afraid lest any of us should die before we are taken.7. 388 Let us therefore make haste, and instead of affording them so much pleasure, as they hope for in getting us under their power, let us leave them an example which shall at once cause their astonishment at our death, and their admiration of our hardiness therein."