The Temple Mount Myth Revealed

[Hossfly]

Based on what, the OT. Too funny. It was common in ancient time to build a church over the ruins of another's church, signified control of the land, also Herods temple was replaced with a Christian Church, then the Mosque, , today we do not tear down historical sites and build over them.

First you say there was no Temple, then you say it was a fairy tale, then there was a Temple, then it's a hasbera lie, now there's a Temple. So WTF is there or under there?

Was or was not, no difference, and the stories in the OT are so far fetched to be true is beyond reality. I do believe it was a very traveled area, from Egypt to Assyria, and the coastline of the Med. Sea. The hill people are not much of relevance except they most likely pirated traders en route.

Abraham is your god, the god of a man who pimps his wife for his protection, and then his son who does the same. His nephew offered his dtr to townsmen, why, because the angles could not fend for themselves. Lets hope these are stories, as Abraham was about ready to burther his second son , because of a auditory hallucination. The Phoenicians Kings use to do that , historical according to Eusebius, when they were losing their kingdom, as a last chance. Even one Hebrew won a battle and knowing his dtr would be the first to greet him on arrival to his home, offered her as a sacrifice if he could win the battle and he did as said in the bible. Some is most likely true, but not based on anyone known , oral stories, we know how oral stories go. The get bigger and bigger every time they are told.

The Stele of ancient Egypt and the words of Roman historians tell the same tales, yet here is yiu a soi called Christian denying the very foundation of your belief once you realised that your god was a Jewish rabbi .

Abraham was never a God until you muslims took him as your own, and you still worship him when you go on haj

Another thing about history is through the ages, tribal people had storytellers. The storytellers had apprentices who learned tribal history by rote. Stories were passed down for thousands of years until writing became a substitute. Then stories that were passed down were put on written pages. Among warlike tribes, storytellers were well protected or sent to a safe location until a battle was over. Then they would be given a detailed account of the battle. Storytellers and apprentices would then absorb the story into memory by rote.
One example about storytellers for American tribes is if one is killed he was the one who was mourned the most.
In some cases stories were fudged a little for the sake of delicate ears.For example, the story about David slaying a lion was changed to say: "....and David slew the the lion..." instead of truthfully saying "....and David stomped the shit out of that sumbitch....."

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

 

[Hossfly]

In 1924 the Supreme Moslem Council headed by the infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini published a booklet where they used the Jewish scriptures to establish the connection between the mosque on the Temple Mount to King Solomon's Temple. This is what they wrote:

"The site is one of the oldest in the world. It's sanctity dates from the earliest (perhaps from pre-historic) times. It's identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to the universal belief, on which "David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burned offerings"

page 4, 2nd paragraph.

Proves nothing, note the footmark at bottom of the page 2 Samuel 24:25, I guess they can read as well. Also native Indians may of live on my land as late as the 1800's, but I'm not giving them my land. Do you get it.

Funny how you believe that, yet probably deny that the Prophet ascended to heaven on his stead. Even if there were a Solomon, he was a pagan, worshipped many gods, and suffered from a stone hard penis since they didn't make Viagra back then, and when did he have time to rule, with all those wife's
and concubines.

The point remains, we do not know who built what there, and " Solomon's temple has been gone for eons, like what 500 BC if it existed at all.

It only proves that the uncle of Yassir Arafat and the grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti
approved that the mosque in Jerusalem was built on the site of the ancient altar of David and Solomon which remains we see today...not to mention the Gate of Daud.

Meaning the highest officials on Islam in Palestine printed their acknowledgment to the fact that their mosque was built much much later on top of the remains of great Jewish altars before them.

In 1924 the Supreme Moslem Council headed by the infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini published a booklet where they used the Jewish scriptures to establish the connection between the mosque on the Temple Mount to King Solomon's Temple. This is what they wrote:

"The site is one of the oldest in the world. It's sanctity dates from the earliest (perhaps from pre-historic) times. It's identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to the universal belief, on which "David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burned offerings"

page 4, 2nd paragraph.

Proves nothing, note the footmark at bottom of the page 2 Samuel 24:25, I guess they can read as well. Also native Indians may of live on my land as late as the 1800's, but I'm not giving them my land. Do you get it.

Funny how you believe that, yet probably deny that the Prophet ascended to heaven on his stead. Even if there were a Solomon, he was a pagan, worshipped many gods, and suffered from a stone hard penis since they didn't make Viagra back then, and when did he have time to rule, with all those wife's
and concubines.

The point remains, we do not know who built what there, and " Solomon's temple has been gone for eons, like what 500 BC if it existed at all.

It only proves that the uncle of Yassir Arafat and the grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti
approved that the mosque in Jerusalem was built on the site of the ancient altar of David and Solomon which remains we see today...not to mention the Gate of Daud.

Meaning the highest officials on Islam in Palestine printed their acknowledgment to the fact that their mosque was built much much later on top of the remains of great Jewish altars before them.

Based on what, the OT. Too funny. It was common in ancient time to build a church over the ruins of another's church, signified control of the land, also Herods temple was replaced with a Christian Church, then the Mosque, , today we do not tear down historical sites and build over them.

Liar as you muslims are doing this all the time, just look at the Churches and Synagouges destroyed and having mosques built in their place.

Where churches and synagogues were destroyed?

I can give you a long list of churches and mosques burned by your terrorists mates since 1948.

Why don't you do just that and we can see where your list comes from. Right now in the Middle East your brethren are destroying many churches and old antiquities. Years ago your brethren were busy destroying synagogues and the Jews were forced to leave. Not only that but all over the Muslim world this has happened not only to Jews and Christians but to Hindus and Buddhists also.

 

[Phoenall]

In 1924 the Supreme Moslem Council headed by the infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini published a booklet where they used the Jewish scriptures to establish the connection between the mosque on the Temple Mount to King Solomon's Temple. This is what they wrote:

"The site is one of the oldest in the world. It's sanctity dates from the earliest (perhaps from pre-historic) times. It's identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to the universal belief, on which "David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burned offerings"

page 4, 2nd paragraph.

Proves nothing, note the footmark at bottom of the page 2 Samuel 24:25, I guess they can read as well. Also native Indians may of live on my land as late as the 1800's, but I'm not giving them my land. Do you get it.

Funny how you believe that, yet probably deny that the Prophet ascended to heaven on his stead. Even if there were a Solomon, he was a pagan, worshipped many gods, and suffered from a stone hard penis since they didn't make Viagra back then, and when did he have time to rule, with all those wife's
and concubines.

The point remains, we do not know who built what there, and " Solomon's temple has been gone for eons, like what 500 BC if it existed at all.

It only proves that the uncle of Yassir Arafat and the grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti
approved that the mosque in Jerusalem was built on the site of the ancient altar of David and Solomon which remains we see today...not to mention the Gate of Daud.

Meaning the highest officials on Islam in Palestine printed their acknowledgment to the fact that their mosque was built much much later on top of the remains of great Jewish altars before them.

In 1924 the Supreme Moslem Council headed by the infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini published a booklet where they used the Jewish scriptures to establish the connection between the mosque on the Temple Mount to King Solomon's Temple. This is what they wrote:

"The site is one of the oldest in the world. It's sanctity dates from the earliest (perhaps from pre-historic) times. It's identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to the universal belief, on which "David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burned offerings"

page 4, 2nd paragraph.

Proves nothing, note the footmark at bottom of the page 2 Samuel 24:25, I guess they can read as well. Also native Indians may of live on my land as late as the 1800's, but I'm not giving them my land. Do you get it.

Funny how you believe that, yet probably deny that the Prophet ascended to heaven on his stead. Even if there were a Solomon, he was a pagan, worshipped many gods, and suffered from a stone hard penis since they didn't make Viagra back then, and when did he have time to rule, with all those wife's
and concubines.

The point remains, we do not know who built what there, and " Solomon's temple has been gone for eons, like what 500 BC if it existed at all.

It only proves that the uncle of Yassir Arafat and the grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti
approved that the mosque in Jerusalem was built on the site of the ancient altar of David and Solomon which remains we see today...not to mention the Gate of Daud.

Meaning the highest officials on Islam in Palestine printed their acknowledgment to the fact that their mosque was built much much later on top of the remains of great Jewish altars before them.

Based on what, the OT. Too funny. It was common in ancient time to build a church over the ruins of another's church, signified control of the land, also Herods temple was replaced with a Christian Church, then the Mosque, , today we do not tear down historical sites and build over them.

Liar as you muslims are doing this all the time, just look at the Churches and Synagouges destroyed and having mosques built in their place.

Where churches and synagogues were destroyed?

I can give you a long list of churches and mosques burned by your terrorists mates since 1948.

Can you, and no doubt it will have an islamonazi source. When he reality is that most were attacked by muslims who blamed the Jews.

 

[Freeman]

Proves nothing, note the footmark at bottom of the page 2 Samuel 24:25, I guess they can read as well. Also native Indians may of live on my land as late as the 1800's, but I'm not giving them my land. Do you get it.

Funny how you believe that, yet probably deny that the Prophet ascended to heaven on his stead. Even if there were a Solomon, he was a pagan, worshipped many gods, and suffered from a stone hard penis since they didn't make Viagra back then, and when did he have time to rule, with all those wife's
and concubines.

The point remains, we do not know who built what there, and " Solomon's temple has been gone for eons, like what 500 BC if it existed at all.

It only proves that the uncle of Yassir Arafat and the grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti
approved that the mosque in Jerusalem was built on the site of the ancient altar of David and Solomon which remains we see today...not to mention the Gate of Daud.

Meaning the highest officials on Islam in Palestine printed their acknowledgment to the fact that their mosque was built much much later on top of the remains of great Jewish altars before them.

Proves nothing, note the footmark at bottom of the page 2 Samuel 24:25, I guess they can read as well. Also native Indians may of live on my land as late as the 1800's, but I'm not giving them my land. Do you get it.

Funny how you believe that, yet probably deny that the Prophet ascended to heaven on his stead. Even if there were a Solomon, he was a pagan, worshipped many gods, and suffered from a stone hard penis since they didn't make Viagra back then, and when did he have time to rule, with all those wife's
and concubines.

The point remains, we do not know who built what there, and " Solomon's temple has been gone for eons, like what 500 BC if it existed at all.

It only proves that the uncle of Yassir Arafat and the grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti
approved that the mosque in Jerusalem was built on the site of the ancient altar of David and Solomon which remains we see today...not to mention the Gate of Daud.

Meaning the highest officials on Islam in Palestine printed their acknowledgment to the fact that their mosque was built much much later on top of the remains of great Jewish altars before them.

Based on what, the OT. Too funny. It was common in ancient time to build a church over the ruins of another's church, signified control of the land, also Herods temple was replaced with a Christian Church, then the Mosque, , today we do not tear down historical sites and build over them.

Liar as you muslims are doing this all the time, just look at the Churches and Synagouges destroyed and having mosques built in their place.

Where churches and synagogues were destroyed?

I can give you a long list of churches and mosques burned by your terrorists mates since 1948.

Can you, and no doubt it will have an islamonazi source. When he reality is that most were attacked by muslims who blamed the Jews.

As usually you don't answer?
You just throw accusations!

 

[Freeman]

First you say there was no Temple, then you say it was a fairy tale, then there was a Temple, then it's a hasbera lie, now there's a Temple. So WTF is there or under there?

Was or was not, no difference, and the stories in the OT are so far fetched to be true is beyond reality. I do believe it was a very traveled area, from Egypt to Assyria, and the coastline of the Med. Sea. The hill people are not much of relevance except they most likely pirated traders en route.

Abraham is your god, the god of a man who pimps his wife for his protection, and then his son who does the same. His nephew offered his dtr to townsmen, why, because the angles could not fend for themselves. Lets hope these are stories, as Abraham was about ready to burther his second son , because of a auditory hallucination. The Phoenicians Kings use to do that , historical according to Eusebius, when they were losing their kingdom, as a last chance. Even one Hebrew won a battle and knowing his dtr would be the first to greet him on arrival to his home, offered her as a sacrifice if he could win the battle and he did as said in the bible. Some is most likely true, but not based on anyone known , oral stories, we know how oral stories go. The get bigger and bigger every time they are told.

The Stele of ancient Egypt and the words of Roman historians tell the same tales, yet here is yiu a soi called Christian denying the very foundation of your belief once you realised that your god was a Jewish rabbi .

Abraham was never a God until you muslims took him as your own, and you still worship him when you go on haj

Another thing about history is through the ages, tribal people had storytellers. The storytellers had apprentices who learned tribal history by rote. Stories were passed down for thousands of years until writing became a substitute. Then stories that were passed down were put on written pages. Among warlike tribes, storytellers were well protected or sent to a safe location until a battle was over. Then they would be given a detailed account of the battle. Storytellers and apprentices would then absorb the story into memory by rote.
One example about storytellers for American tribes is if one is killed he was the one who was mourned the most.
In some cases stories were fudged a little for the sake of delicate ears.For example, the story about David slaying a lion was changed to say: "....and David slew the the lion..." instead of truthfully saying "....and David stomped the shit out of that sumbitch....."

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

 

[Hossfly]

Was or was not, no difference, and the stories in the OT are so far fetched to be true is beyond reality. I do believe it was a very traveled area, from Egypt to Assyria, and the coastline of the Med. Sea. The hill people are not much of relevance except they most likely pirated traders en route.

Abraham is your god, the god of a man who pimps his wife for his protection, and then his son who does the same. His nephew offered his dtr to townsmen, why, because the angles could not fend for themselves. Lets hope these are stories, as Abraham was about ready to burther his second son , because of a auditory hallucination. The Phoenicians Kings use to do that , historical according to Eusebius, when they were losing their kingdom, as a last chance. Even one Hebrew won a battle and knowing his dtr would be the first to greet him on arrival to his home, offered her as a sacrifice if he could win the battle and he did as said in the bible. Some is most likely true, but not based on anyone known , oral stories, we know how oral stories go. The get bigger and bigger every time they are told.

The Stele of ancient Egypt and the words of Roman historians tell the same tales, yet here is yiu a soi called Christian denying the very foundation of your belief once you realised that your god was a Jewish rabbi .

Abraham was never a God until you muslims took him as your own, and you still worship him when you go on haj

Another thing about history is through the ages, tribal people had storytellers. The storytellers had apprentices who learned tribal history by rote. Stories were passed down for thousands of years until writing became a substitute. Then stories that were passed down were put on written pages. Among warlike tribes, storytellers were well protected or sent to a safe location until a battle was over. Then they would be given a detailed account of the battle. Storytellers and apprentices would then absorb the story into memory by rote.
One example about storytellers for American tribes is if one is killed he was the one who was mourned the most.
In some cases stories were fudged a little for the sake of delicate ears.For example, the story about David slaying a lion was changed to say: "....and David slew the the lion..." instead of truthfully saying "....and David stomped the shit out of that sumbitch....."

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

How about it is right underneath the mosque? Why do you think the authorities in charge of the mosque are busy having relics from the Jewish temple thrown away as soon as they find them while excavating?. This is so different from other religions which preserve these old relics.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

 

[Penelope]

The land already had a bride, the Palestinians, which are Christian, Jewish and Muslim, the ones who stayed, during and after the exile, after Greek and Roman empires, and throughout the Ottoman empire, those who worked the land.

Yes. And the Jewish Palestinians are the oldest surviving peoples who originated on that land. Some of them were able to stay and some of them were exiled. Now those same Jewish Palestinians would like to have self-determination on their historical land. Separate from the Arab Palestinians. Which is convenient because the Arab Palestinians also want self-determination, separate from the Jewish Palestinians.

The problem comes when people can't keep their own arguments straight enough to remember the basic historical truths that you just wrote in that paragraph and start trying to find all sorts of silly excuses for denying those basic facts.

Palestinians Hebrews, there were no jews back in the day, so I rest my case, anyone new there is not from the original Hebrews.

Then why did the Romans in Jerusalem call the Hebrews "Jews?" And don't sat it ain't so.

The term "Israel" or "Children of Israel" refers to the twelve sons of Jacob and their descendants. Jews almost never referred to themselves collectively as "Jews" until after the 13th century. In the Bible, Prayer Book and Talmud they call themselves "Children of Israel", "Children of Jacob", "Israel", etc. but never "Jews". The word "Jews" derives from the Roman term "Judea" which described roughly the area allocated to the tribe of Judah including Jerusalem. More specifically it refers to the militant zealots who fought against Rome. According to Josephus, these zealots belonged to a Temple Cult at odds with the Rabbinical Jewish authorities, and a portion of which were Idumean converts to Judaism.

Quotes from the Qu'ran and Hadith about Jews, Jerusalem and Israel

 

[Freeman]

The Stele of ancient Egypt and the words of Roman historians tell the same tales, yet here is yiu a soi called Christian denying the very foundation of your belief once you realised that your god was a Jewish rabbi .

Abraham was never a God until you muslims took him as your own, and you still worship him when you go on haj

Another thing about history is through the ages, tribal people had storytellers. The storytellers had apprentices who learned tribal history by rote. Stories were passed down for thousands of years until writing became a substitute. Then stories that were passed down were put on written pages. Among warlike tribes, storytellers were well protected or sent to a safe location until a battle was over. Then they would be given a detailed account of the battle. Storytellers and apprentices would then absorb the story into memory by rote.
One example about storytellers for American tribes is if one is killed he was the one who was mourned the most.
In some cases stories were fudged a little for the sake of delicate ears.For example, the story about David slaying a lion was changed to say: "....and David slew the the lion..." instead of truthfully saying "....and David stomped the shit out of that sumbitch....."

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

How about it is right underneath the mosque? Why do you think the authorities in charge of the mosque are busy having relics from the Jewish temple thrown away as soon as they find them while excavating?. This is so different from other religions which preserve these old relics.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

- It's forbidden according to texts for jews to enter the temple despite there is controversies about it's place.

- The mosque is islamic property since centuries and in 1930 the sweden commission has investigate and declared the western wall and mosque area as islamic property.

 

[Hossfly]

Another thing about history is through the ages, tribal people had storytellers. The storytellers had apprentices who learned tribal history by rote. Stories were passed down for thousands of years until writing became a substitute. Then stories that were passed down were put on written pages. Among warlike tribes, storytellers were well protected or sent to a safe location until a battle was over. Then they would be given a detailed account of the battle. Storytellers and apprentices would then absorb the story into memory by rote.
One example about storytellers for American tribes is if one is killed he was the one who was mourned the most.
In some cases stories were fudged a little for the sake of delicate ears.For example, the story about David slaying a lion was changed to say: "....and David slew the the lion..." instead of truthfully saying "....and David stomped the shit out of that sumbitch....."

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

How about it is right underneath the mosque? Why do you think the authorities in charge of the mosque are busy having relics from the Jewish temple thrown away as soon as they find them while excavating?. This is so different from other religions which preserve these old relics.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

- It's forbidden according to texts for jews to enter the temple despite there is controversies about it's place.

- The mosque is islamic property since centuries and in 1930 the sweden commission has investigate and declared the western wall and mosque area as islamic property.

What is the importance of the Temple to Islam? Muslims never came to Jerusalem until AD 637. Solomon's Temple was destroyed in 586 BC and the Second Temple stood until AD 70, which was 560 years before the plague of Islam arrived. A small mosque was built in AD 636 which was 15 years after Mohammed made his historic flight. There was no mosque in Jerusalem so I'll bet he got his GPS disabled and landed in Hoboken, New Jersey. Now, that flight had to be some really majikal shit. Unless Mohammed was a Time Traveler.

 

[Boston1]

Was or was not, no difference, and the stories in the OT are so far fetched to be true is beyond reality. I do believe it was a very traveled area, from Egypt to Assyria, and the coastline of the Med. Sea. The hill people are not much of relevance except they most likely pirated traders en route.

Abraham is your god, the god of a man who pimps his wife for his protection, and then his son who does the same. His nephew offered his dtr to townsmen, why, because the angles could not fend for themselves. Lets hope these are stories, as Abraham was about ready to burther his second son , because of a auditory hallucination. The Phoenicians Kings use to do that , historical according to Eusebius, when they were losing their kingdom, as a last chance. Even one Hebrew won a battle and knowing his dtr would be the first to greet him on arrival to his home, offered her as a sacrifice if he could win the battle and he did as said in the bible. Some is most likely true, but not based on anyone known , oral stories, we know how oral stories go. The get bigger and bigger every time they are told.

The Stele of ancient Egypt and the words of Roman historians tell the same tales, yet here is yiu a soi called Christian denying the very foundation of your belief once you realised that your god was a Jewish rabbi .

Abraham was never a God until you muslims took him as your own, and you still worship him when you go on haj

Another thing about history is through the ages, tribal people had storytellers. The storytellers had apprentices who learned tribal history by rote. Stories were passed down for thousands of years until writing became a substitute. Then stories that were passed down were put on written pages. Among warlike tribes, storytellers were well protected or sent to a safe location until a battle was over. Then they would be given a detailed account of the battle. Storytellers and apprentices would then absorb the story into memory by rote.
One example about storytellers for American tribes is if one is killed he was the one who was mourned the most.
In some cases stories were fudged a little for the sake of delicate ears.For example, the story about David slaying a lion was changed to say: "....and David slew the the lion..." instead of truthfully saying "....and David stomped the shit out of that sumbitch....."

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

Great book, but it didn't say the Temple mount wasn't the site of the first or the second temple. The Judaic main temple complex was definitely right were todays modern Jews say it was.

 

[Hossfly]

The land already had a bride, the Palestinians, which are Christian, Jewish and Muslim, the ones who stayed, during and after the exile, after Greek and Roman empires, and throughout the Ottoman empire, those who worked the land.

Yes. And the Jewish Palestinians are the oldest surviving peoples who originated on that land. Some of them were able to stay and some of them were exiled. Now those same Jewish Palestinians would like to have self-determination on their historical land. Separate from the Arab Palestinians. Which is convenient because the Arab Palestinians also want self-determination, separate from the Jewish Palestinians.

The problem comes when people can't keep their own arguments straight enough to remember the basic historical truths that you just wrote in that paragraph and start trying to find all sorts of silly excuses for denying those basic facts.

Palestinians Hebrews, there were no jews back in the day, so I rest my case, anyone new there is not from the original Hebrews.

Then why did the Romans in Jerusalem call the Hebrews "Jews?" And don't sat it ain't so.

The term "Israel" or "Children of Israel" refers to the twelve sons of Jacob and their descendants. Jews almost never referred to themselves collectively as "Jews" until after the 13th century. In the Bible, Prayer Book and Talmud they call themselves "Children of Israel", "Children of Jacob", "Israel", etc. but never "Jews". The word "Jews" derives from the Roman term "Judea" which described roughly the area allocated to the tribe of Judah including Jerusalem. More specifically it refers to the militant zealots who fought against Rome. According to Josephus, these zealots belonged to a Temple Cult at odds with the Rabbinical Jewish authorities, and a portion of which were Idumean converts to Judaism.

Quotes from the Qu'ran and Hadith about Jews, Jerusalem and Israel

So nobody should take anything from the Old Testament as correct, but we all should take what the Muslims holy writings say. As a good Roman Catholic, you should like this one unless by now you have converted to Islam.

1. 5:72-73: They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God, - God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

 

[Hossfly]

Another thing about history is through the ages, tribal people had storytellers. The storytellers had apprentices who learned tribal history by rote. Stories were passed down for thousands of years until writing became a substitute. Then stories that were passed down were put on written pages. Among warlike tribes, storytellers were well protected or sent to a safe location until a battle was over. Then they would be given a detailed account of the battle. Storytellers and apprentices would then absorb the story into memory by rote.
One example about storytellers for American tribes is if one is killed he was the one who was mourned the most.
In some cases stories were fudged a little for the sake of delicate ears.For example, the story about David slaying a lion was changed to say: "....and David slew the the lion..." instead of truthfully saying "....and David stomped the shit out of that sumbitch....."

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

How about it is right underneath the mosque? Why do you think the authorities in charge of the mosque are busy having relics from the Jewish temple thrown away as soon as they find them while excavating?. This is so different from other religions which preserve these old relics.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

- It's forbidden according to texts for jews to enter the temple despite there is controversies about it's place.

- The mosque is islamic property since centuries and in 1930 the sweden commission has investigate and declared the western wall and mosque area as islamic property.

You already told us about Sweden. This does not make the Sweden commission right in its conclusion. The worse mistake that Dayan made was giving authority of the Temple Mount to the Muslims. They are so intolerant of others that they don't even want Christians saying prayers on the Mount.

The reason many Orthodox Rabbis don't want to see Jews on the Mount is because the Holy of Holies is supposed to be there. Maybe Freeman can tell us why those of other religions can't visit Mecca. After all, it is just some meteorite that the Muslims are worshipping, not some special rock that in Muslim myth Abraham dragged from hundreds of miles away..

 

[Phoenall]

It only proves that the uncle of Yassir Arafat and the grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti
approved that the mosque in Jerusalem was built on the site of the ancient altar of David and Solomon which remains we see today...not to mention the Gate of Daud.

Meaning the highest officials on Islam in Palestine printed their acknowledgment to the fact that their mosque was built much much later on top of the remains of great Jewish altars before them.

It only proves that the uncle of Yassir Arafat and the grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti
approved that the mosque in Jerusalem was built on the site of the ancient altar of David and Solomon which remains we see today...not to mention the Gate of Daud.

Meaning the highest officials on Islam in Palestine printed their acknowledgment to the fact that their mosque was built much much later on top of the remains of great Jewish altars before them.

Based on what, the OT. Too funny. It was common in ancient time to build a church over the ruins of another's church, signified control of the land, also Herods temple was replaced with a Christian Church, then the Mosque, , today we do not tear down historical sites and build over them.

Liar as you muslims are doing this all the time, just look at the Churches and Synagouges destroyed and having mosques built in their place.

Where churches and synagogues were destroyed?

I can give you a long list of churches and mosques burned by your terrorists mates since 1948.

Can you, and no doubt it will have an islamonazi source. When he reality is that most were attacked by muslims who blamed the Jews.

As usually you don't answer?
You just throw accusations!

What accusations are those then as the facts show the majority of attacks have been carried out by muslims.

 

[Phoenall]

Was or was not, no difference, and the stories in the OT are so far fetched to be true is beyond reality. I do believe it was a very traveled area, from Egypt to Assyria, and the coastline of the Med. Sea. The hill people are not much of relevance except they most likely pirated traders en route.

Abraham is your god, the god of a man who pimps his wife for his protection, and then his son who does the same. His nephew offered his dtr to townsmen, why, because the angles could not fend for themselves. Lets hope these are stories, as Abraham was about ready to burther his second son , because of a auditory hallucination. The Phoenicians Kings use to do that , historical according to Eusebius, when they were losing their kingdom, as a last chance. Even one Hebrew won a battle and knowing his dtr would be the first to greet him on arrival to his home, offered her as a sacrifice if he could win the battle and he did as said in the bible. Some is most likely true, but not based on anyone known , oral stories, we know how oral stories go. The get bigger and bigger every time they are told.

The Stele of ancient Egypt and the words of Roman historians tell the same tales, yet here is yiu a soi called Christian denying the very foundation of your belief once you realised that your god was a Jewish rabbi .

Abraham was never a God until you muslims took him as your own, and you still worship him when you go on haj

Another thing about history is through the ages, tribal people had storytellers. The storytellers had apprentices who learned tribal history by rote. Stories were passed down for thousands of years until writing became a substitute. Then stories that were passed down were put on written pages. Among warlike tribes, storytellers were well protected or sent to a safe location until a battle was over. Then they would be given a detailed account of the battle. Storytellers and apprentices would then absorb the story into memory by rote.
One example about storytellers for American tribes is if one is killed he was the one who was mourned the most.
In some cases stories were fudged a little for the sake of delicate ears.For example, the story about David slaying a lion was changed to say: "....and David slew the the lion..." instead of truthfully saying "....and David stomped the shit out of that sumbitch....."

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

Every Jewish archeologist or just these two who support your POV ?

 

[Phoenall]

The land already had a bride, the Palestinians, which are Christian, Jewish and Muslim, the ones who stayed, during and after the exile, after Greek and Roman empires, and throughout the Ottoman empire, those who worked the land.

Yes. And the Jewish Palestinians are the oldest surviving peoples who originated on that land. Some of them were able to stay and some of them were exiled. Now those same Jewish Palestinians would like to have self-determination on their historical land. Separate from the Arab Palestinians. Which is convenient because the Arab Palestinians also want self-determination, separate from the Jewish Palestinians.

The problem comes when people can't keep their own arguments straight enough to remember the basic historical truths that you just wrote in that paragraph and start trying to find all sorts of silly excuses for denying those basic facts.

Palestinians Hebrews, there were no jews back in the day, so I rest my case, anyone new there is not from the original Hebrews.

Then why did the Romans in Jerusalem call the Hebrews "Jews?" And don't sat it ain't so.

The term "Israel" or "Children of Israel" refers to the twelve sons of Jacob and their descendants. Jews almost never referred to themselves collectively as "Jews" until after the 13th century. In the Bible, Prayer Book and Talmud they call themselves "Children of Israel", "Children of Jacob", "Israel", etc. but never "Jews". The word "Jews" derives from the Roman term "Judea" which described roughly the area allocated to the tribe of Judah including Jerusalem. More specifically it refers to the militant zealots who fought against Rome. According to Josephus, these zealots belonged to a Temple Cult at odds with the Rabbinical Jewish authorities, and a portion of which were Idumean converts to Judaism.

Quotes from the Qu'ran and Hadith about Jews, Jerusalem and Israel

So once again you admit that the European Jews are real Jews and not converts. Keep it up and very soon the islamonazi's will be putting a price on your head

 

[Phoenall]

Another thing about history is through the ages, tribal people had storytellers. The storytellers had apprentices who learned tribal history by rote. Stories were passed down for thousands of years until writing became a substitute. Then stories that were passed down were put on written pages. Among warlike tribes, storytellers were well protected or sent to a safe location until a battle was over. Then they would be given a detailed account of the battle. Storytellers and apprentices would then absorb the story into memory by rote.
One example about storytellers for American tribes is if one is killed he was the one who was mourned the most.
In some cases stories were fudged a little for the sake of delicate ears.For example, the story about David slaying a lion was changed to say: "....and David slew the the lion..." instead of truthfully saying "....and David stomped the shit out of that sumbitch....."

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

How about it is right underneath the mosque? Why do you think the authorities in charge of the mosque are busy having relics from the Jewish temple thrown away as soon as they find them while excavating?. This is so different from other religions which preserve these old relics.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

- It's forbidden according to texts for jews to enter the temple despite there is controversies about it's place.

- The mosque is islamic property since centuries and in 1930 the sweden commission has investigate and declared the western wall and mosque area as islamic property.

WRONG

It is forbidden for the Jews to enter the holy of holies which is under the carbuncle built in the 19C and rebuilt in the 20C. No contrversy as artifacts pertaining to the Temple have been found in the spoil heaps of muslim archeological digs.

And just who gave the swden commission the authority to do that, would it by any chance be the muslims ?

 

[Freeman]

Can a rodeo dude like you distiguish between a story and history?
Can you explain the texts contradictions about the temple mount place?

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

How about it is right underneath the mosque? Why do you think the authorities in charge of the mosque are busy having relics from the Jewish temple thrown away as soon as they find them while excavating?. This is so different from other religions which preserve these old relics.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

- It's forbidden according to texts for jews to enter the temple despite there is controversies about it's place.

- The mosque is islamic property since centuries and in 1930 the sweden commission has investigate and declared the western wall and mosque area as islamic property.

WRONG

It is forbidden for the Jews to enter the holy of holies which is under the carbuncle built in the 19C and rebuilt in the 20C. No contrversy as artifacts pertaining to the Temple have been found in the spoil heaps of muslim archeological digs.

And just who gave the swden commission the authority to do that, would it by any chance be the muslims ?

Concerning religious view:
"A few hours after the Temple Mount came under Israeli control during the Six-Day War, a message from the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman and Yitzhak Nissim was broadcast, warning that Jews were not permitted to enter the site.[120] This warning was reiterated by the Council of the Chief Rabbinate a few days later, which issued an explanation written by Rabbi Bezalel Jolti (Zolti) that "Since the sanctity of the site has never ended, it is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount until the Temple is built."[120] The signatures of more than 300 prominent rabbis were later obtained."- Wikipedia

During the British Mandate over Palestine, the Buraq Revolution took place on 23 August, 1929; an international commission was formed to examine the claims of Muslims and Jews to the Western Wall. The commission was headed by the former Swedish Foreign Minister, Eliel Lofgren; the former Vice President of the International Court of Justice, Charles Bard from Switzerland, served as a member. After the investigation conducted by this committee and after hearing all points of view, the committee issued a report in 1930 and submitted it to the League of Nations; it confirmed the undoubted right of the Muslims to ownership of the Buraq Wall.

 

[Hossfly]

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

How about it is right underneath the mosque? Why do you think the authorities in charge of the mosque are busy having relics from the Jewish temple thrown away as soon as they find them while excavating?. This is so different from other religions which preserve these old relics.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

- It's forbidden according to texts for jews to enter the temple despite there is controversies about it's place.

- The mosque is islamic property since centuries and in 1930 the sweden commission has investigate and declared the western wall and mosque area as islamic property.

WRONG

It is forbidden for the Jews to enter the holy of holies which is under the carbuncle built in the 19C and rebuilt in the 20C. No contrversy as artifacts pertaining to the Temple have been found in the spoil heaps of muslim archeological digs.

And just who gave the swden commission the authority to do that, would it by any chance be the muslims ?

Concerning religious view:
"A few hours after the Temple Mount came under Israeli control during the Six-Day War, a message from the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman and Yitzhak Nissim was broadcast, warning that Jews were not permitted to enter the site.[120] This warning was reiterated by the Council of the Chief Rabbinate a few days later, which issued an explanation written by Rabbi Bezalel Jolti (Zolti) that "Since the sanctity of the site has never ended, it is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount until the Temple is built."[120] The signatures of more than 300 prominent rabbis were later obtained."- Wikipedia

During the British Mandate over Palestine, the Buraq Revolution took place on 23 August, 1929; an international commission was formed to examine the claims of Muslims and Jews to the Western Wall. The commission was headed by the former Swedish Foreign Minister, Eliel Lofgren; the former Vice President of the International Court of Justice, Charles Bard from Switzerland, served as a member. After the investigation conducted by this committee and after hearing all points of view, the committee issued a report in 1930 and submitted it to the League of Nations; it confirmed the undoubted right of the Muslims to ownership of the Buraq Wall.

If the Rabbinate said that Jews couldn't enter the Holy of Holies, how come heathen Muslims can desecrate the site with their filthy shoes on?

 

[Freeman]

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

How about it is right underneath the mosque? Why do you think the authorities in charge of the mosque are busy having relics from the Jewish temple thrown away as soon as they find them while excavating?. This is so different from other religions which preserve these old relics.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

- It's forbidden according to texts for jews to enter the temple despite there is controversies about it's place.

- The mosque is islamic property since centuries and in 1930 the sweden commission has investigate and declared the western wall and mosque area as islamic property.

WRONG

It is forbidden for the Jews to enter the holy of holies which is under the carbuncle built in the 19C and rebuilt in the 20C. No contrversy as artifacts pertaining to the Temple have been found in the spoil heaps of muslim archeological digs.

And just who gave the swden commission the authority to do that, would it by any chance be the muslims ?

Concerning religious view:
"A few hours after the Temple Mount came under Israeli control during the Six-Day War, a message from the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman and Yitzhak Nissim was broadcast, warning that Jews were not permitted to enter the site.[120] This warning was reiterated by the Council of the Chief Rabbinate a few days later, which issued an explanation written by Rabbi Bezalel Jolti (Zolti) that "Since the sanctity of the site has never ended, it is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount until the Temple is built."[120] The signatures of more than 300 prominent rabbis were later obtained."- Wikipedia

During the British Mandate over Palestine, the Buraq Revolution took place on 23 August, 1929; an international commission was formed to examine the claims of Muslims and Jews to the Western Wall. The commission was headed by the former Swedish Foreign Minister, Eliel Lofgren; the former Vice President of the International Court of Justice, Charles Bard from Switzerland, served as a member. After the investigation conducted by this committee and after hearing all points of view, the committee issued a report in 1930 and submitted it to the League of Nations; it confirmed the undoubted right of the Muslims to ownership of the Buraq Wall.

If the Rabbinate said that Jews couldn't enter the Holy of Holies, how come heathen Muslims can desecrate the site with their filthy shoes on?

Muslims and Christians are not concerned by jewish myths mostly there is no unanimity about its place.

 

[Phoenall]

Can an ex-con like you understand that what I read in the OT is taken literally and not taking a verse here, a sentence there and a word here? With no cherry picking.

So what's the place of this supposed temple? as israelis acheologists didn't find any stone of this myth!

How about it is right underneath the mosque? Why do you think the authorities in charge of the mosque are busy having relics from the Jewish temple thrown away as soon as they find them while excavating?. This is so different from other religions which preserve these old relics.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

- It's forbidden according to texts for jews to enter the temple despite there is controversies about it's place.

- The mosque is islamic property since centuries and in 1930 the sweden commission has investigate and declared the western wall and mosque area as islamic property.

WRONG

It is forbidden for the Jews to enter the holy of holies which is under the carbuncle built in the 19C and rebuilt in the 20C. No contrversy as artifacts pertaining to the Temple have been found in the spoil heaps of muslim archeological digs.

And just who gave the swden commission the authority to do that, would it by any chance be the muslims ?

Concerning religious view:
"A few hours after the Temple Mount came under Israeli control during the Six-Day War, a message from the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman and Yitzhak Nissim was broadcast, warning that Jews were not permitted to enter the site.[120] This warning was reiterated by the Council of the Chief Rabbinate a few days later, which issued an explanation written by Rabbi Bezalel Jolti (Zolti) that "Since the sanctity of the site has never ended, it is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount until the Temple is built."[120] The signatures of more than 300 prominent rabbis were later obtained."- Wikipedia

During the British Mandate over Palestine, the Buraq Revolution took place on 23 August, 1929; an international commission was formed to examine the claims of Muslims and Jews to the Western Wall. The commission was headed by the former Swedish Foreign Minister, Eliel Lofgren; the former Vice President of the International Court of Justice, Charles Bard from Switzerland, served as a member. After the investigation conducted by this committee and after hearing all points of view, the committee issued a report in 1930 and submitted it to the League of Nations; it confirmed the undoubted right of the Muslims to ownership of the Buraq Wall.

And who formed this commission in the first place.You must have something to hide as you cut and paste without giving the source. Is it because it is an islamonazi source or is it because it says the LoN threw out the findings and reiterated the international law that gave the land to the Jews