The End of the Mosaic Age

[Randy Kluth]

So these buildings only needed to come down, not the foundation walls they were on? Did Jesus claim the foundations would remain in place even if the buildings themselves were torn down? Josephus said that not all of these buildings were torn down at that point. The fortress was part of the building complex. The Temple was not even connected to other buildings. Jesus said buildings plural, which included all the buildings, not just a single building that was the Temple. Have you not seen what this complex looked like? Or you don't trust that people today know what was there?

If that is the case how do you even know what Jesus was talking about? If those archeologists in Israel don't know what they are talking about?

It's been a while since I looked at pictures of Herod's temple. But I can imagine several buildings--perhaps the rooms surrounding the courtyard, being called "the temple." I don't imagine there were perimeter foundations--I imagine the ground was turned into a stone plaza, to reinforce the ground.

At any rate, I think "buildings" plural had to do with several buildings that were called "the temple" because they all served the purpose of temple worship. A retaining wall would not be one of these "buildings." In fact it would not be called a "building" at all.

Any building directly connected to the temple and its courtyard would be "temple buildings." Any buildings outside of this complex would *not* be considered "temple buildings."

 

[ewq1938]

At any rate, I think "buildings" plural had to do with several buildings that were called "the temple" because they all served the purpose of temple worship. A retaining wall would not be one of these "buildings." In fact it would not be called a "building" at all.

Maybe walls were grown and not built? If so, you would have an excellent point.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Maybe walls were grown and not built? If so, you would have an excellent point.

I already explained this to you. You "build" a model plane, and it remains a "plane," and not a "building." The verb "build" does not always translate into its noun form "building," like "develop" turns into "development."

 

[ewq1938]

I already explained this to you. You "build" a model plane, and it remains a "plane," and not a "building."

Which is a logical fallacy. I already explained to you this type of building is related to Architecture according to the Greek word used.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Which is a logical fallacy. I already explained to you this type of building is related to Architecture according to the Greek word used.

And I already explained to you that the Greek word used in its context referred not to retaining walls but to above-ground buildings, and in context the buildings that specifically related to temple worship.

The retaining walls of the plaza area had nothing to do with the temple buildings in that respect, regardless of the fact one may say that "walls are built." Buildings, plural, did not therefore refer simply to all buildings on the plaza, nor to retaining walls simply because they were "built." As I said, being "built" did not make them a "building."

These "buildings," in context, referred specifically to all buildings in association with the temple and its courtyard. These buildings did not include a retaining wall that supported the plaza. Buildings are razed--not retaining walls.

I would further argue that the courtyard and the entire plaza have different meanings. The courtyard is directed associated with the temple worship, dating all the way back to the original tabernacle instructions.

The plaza, on the other hand, was the entire mesa, supported by retaining walls, that included territory outside of the temple courtyard. The courtyard and its enclosures themselves had buildings associated with them.

Any towers connected to walls outside of the temple courtyard would not be considered "temple buildings," as I see it. They were "buildings," but they were not "temple buildings." Therefore, even if towers were built over the retaining wall, this does not make the retaining wall part of the temple buildings.

And even less can the retaining wall be a building that can be "razed." Jesus did not, therefore, have the retaining walls in mind when he mentioned "temple buildings."

 

[Timtofly]

It's been a while since I looked at pictures of Herod's temple. But I can imagine several buildings--perhaps the rooms surrounding the courtyard, being called "the temple." I don't imagine there were perimeter foundations--I imagine the ground was turned into a stone plaza, to reinforce the ground.

At any rate, I think "buildings" plural had to do with several buildings that were called "the temple" because they all served the purpose of temple worship. A retaining wall would not be one of these "buildings." In fact it would not be called a "building" at all.

Any building directly connected to the temple and its courtyard would be "temple buildings." Any buildings outside of this complex would *not* be considered "temple buildings."

Should you not figure that out, before jumping to conclusions. According to archeologists the outer buildings were sitting on the perimeter, with the temple in the middle. The stone courtyard was between the temple buildings and the temple proper. The Temple was a single building, not connected to any other building. The so-called Antonio fortress was part of the perimeter buildings, which were continuous around the perimeter. When the Romans broke through they took out part of the Antonio Fortress as well. That was on ground even with the Temple.

Josephus claimed they left 3 of the towers meaning one tower was completely leveled.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Should you not figure that out, before jumping to conclusions. According to archeologists the outer buildings were sitting on the perimeter, with the temple in the middle. The stone courtyard was between the temple buildings and the temple proper. The Temple was a single building, not connected to any other building. The so-called Antonio fortress was part of the perimeter buildings, which were continuous around the perimeter. When the Romans broke through they took out part of the Antonio Fortress as well. That was on ground even with the Temple.

Josephus claimed they left 3 of the towers meaning one tower was completely leveled.

Yes, I should try to get a read on the buildings there, though I'm very convinced Jesus indicated all the stones of the temple buildings would be leveled by 70 AD or so. The Antonia Fortress was indeed connected to the courtyard area, it seems, but was not *within* the courtyard and the rooms associated with the walls of the courtyard.

It was, in other words, connected to the wall, but *outside of* the courtyard. As such, the Antonia Fortress was not a building associated with the temple buildings. The Palace where Jesus was tried by Pilate would not have been inside of the sacred temple area of the Jewish People!

 

[Timtofly]

Yes, I should try to get a read on the buildings there, though I'm very convinced Jesus indicated all the stones of the temple buildings would be leveled by 70 AD or so. The Antonia Fortress was indeed connected to the courtyard area, it seems, but was not *within* the courtyard and the rooms associated with the walls of the courtyard.

It was, in other words, connected to the wall, but *outside of* the courtyard. As such, the Antonia Fortress was not a building associated with the temple buildings. The Palace where Jesus was tried by Pilate would not have been inside of the sacred temple area of the Jewish People!

All the temple buildings were outside of the courtyard. That was the point of these buildings being on the perimeter, including the fortress.

 

[Randy Kluth]

All the temple buildings were outside of the courtyard. That was the point of these buildings being on the perimeter, including the fortress.

No, the temple was *within* the courtyard. The courtyard was sacred along with everything and everyone within it. But we are talking about buildings and rooms *within* the courtyard--not buildings fastened to the courtyard walls and attached to it from the outside.

Lev 6.26 The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in the sanctuary area, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting.

 

[Timtofly]

No, the temple was *within* the courtyard. The courtyard was sacred along with everything and everyone within it. But we are talking about buildings and rooms *within* the courtyard--not buildings fastened to the courtyard walls and attached to it from the outside.

Lev 6.26 The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in the sanctuary area, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting.

Buildings plural means all the buildings, not just the Temple which was the only Building. The other buildings were the perimeter of the courtyard. That is the point you are rejecting. If buildings plural, then all the buildings of the courtyard are part of the temple complex.

The temple had walls and an inner court, but you exclude all the walls. You don't count them as part of what was to be torn down.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Buildings plural means all the buildings, not just the Temple which was the only Building. The other buildings were the perimeter of the courtyard. That is the point you are rejecting. If buildings plural, then all the buildings of the courtyard are part of the temple complex.

The temple had walls and an inner court, but you exclude all the walls. You don't count them as part of what was to be torn down.

Where I believe you're wrong is here. You say "buildings" apply to all buildings including those outside of the temple. But Jesus specifically addressed the buildings *of the temple.*

Until you get this right, you will *never* get it right. I don't care if buildings were attached to the external walls of the courtyard. They are not part of the temple complex if they are *outside of the courtyard.*

Understanding the terms of this temple complex is a little difficult when you move from the basic tabernacle structure to the more advanced stage of Solomon's temple and the 2nd temple. But basically, the temple complex had walls around it to keep out what is profane. Anything outside of this gated area is *not* part of the temple complex and had nothing to do with the buildings Jesus said would be razed.

There were rooms that might be considered "buildings" that were inside of the courtyard that were not part of the central sanctuary. All those were prophesied to come down, as well.

 

[Timtofly]

Where I believe you're wrong is here. You say "buildings" apply to all buildings including those outside of the temple. But Jesus specifically addressed the buildings *of the temple.*

Until you get this right, you will *never* get it right. I don't care if buildings were attached to the external walls of the courtyard. They are not part of the temple complex if they are *outside of the courtyard.*

Understanding the terms of this temple complex is a little difficult when you move from the basic tabernacle structure to the more advanced stage of Solomon's temple and the 2nd temple. But basically, the temple complex had walls around it to keep out what is profane. Anything outside of this gated area is *not* part of the temple complex and had nothing to do with the buildings Jesus said would be razed.

Of course all the buildings of the Temple were on the perimeter. The Temple was the only singular structure, not multiple structures. If Jesus had said the Temple building singular, you would be right. If you say buildings plural, you are including all the buildings on the perimeter walls.

There were rooms that might be considered "buildings" that were inside of the courtyard that were not part of the central sanctuary. All those were prophesied to come down, as well.

No there were not rooms in the Temple building considered "other buildings".

There was the room where they entered daily. There was the Holy of Holies they entered once a year. The other "rooms", as you put it, were on the walls. The outer buildings formed a wall with rooms or porches. There are no "rooms" in the inner courtyard. Perhaps porches, but overhangings of the wall of the temple.

Why would you not call all the buildings part of the temple complex, even those of the outer courtyard. If you had a detached garage and a separate pole barn, would they not be all your buildings, not just the house?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course all the buildings of the Temple were on the perimeter. The Temple was the only singular structure, not multiple structures. If Jesus had said the Temple building singular, you would be right. If you say buildings plural, you are including all the buildings on the perimeter walls.

I don't believe that's correct. There were buildings, or rooms (one can consider them to be "buildings"), that were inside of the perimeter and gates. You can view Ezekiel's temple (40-48) as indicating this, though I'm not sure what Herod's temple specifically looked like. Check this out: HERE

It is not known exactly what the Temple looked like. No drawings of it exist, and no thorough archaeological excavations at the site of the temple have been done. It is believed that the Temple was not a single building but a series of precincts and courtyards, one inside the other, with a sanctuary with important religious objects at the center. Some have speculated that this sanctuary was enclosed by a monumental 80-foot-high tower.

At any rate, I take Jesus at his word, whether "buildings" plural referred to the addition of porches, as distinct buildings connected to the main building of the Temple, or separate rooms built onto the perimeter walls or inside the gated entrances themselves. I simply believe Jesus said "all Temple buildings would be leveled," without meaning to apply this to all works of engineering in connection with the Temple plaza. The Retaining Wall, including the Western Wall, would *not* be included in the Temple buildings that would be razed, in my opinion.

So we've probably said all we can say, and should probably leave it at that until more information is available?

No there were not rooms in the Temple building considered "other buildings".

There was the room where they entered daily. There was the Holy of Holies they entered once a year. The other "rooms", as you put it, were on the walls. The outer buildings formed a wall with rooms or porches. There are no "rooms" in the inner courtyard. Perhaps porches, but overhangings of the wall of the temple.

Why would you not call all the buildings part of the temple complex, even those of the outer courtyard. If you had a detached garage and a separate pole barn, would they not be all your buildings, not just the house?

All of the buildings associated with one lot or acreage are united by their relation to the singular property they are located on. But Jesus specifically spoke of "temple buildings," and not buildings associated with the temple plaza. There were buildings on the plaza that were not connected to the specified sacred territory of the Temple. The Temple area was defined by the prescribed walls of the courtyard, which were themselves viewed as sacred.

I don't know how you know if there were rooms in the Temple area that could not be viewed as "other buildings?" The porch could've been distinct from the specified biblical temple, which consisted strictly of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Solomon certainly expanded upon the original Tabernacle in his erection of his Temple! And the 2nd Temple was likely to be the same.

Furthermore Ezekiel's temple, which was an idealized future temple, contained other rooms, or buildings inside the walls, and not strictly on the exterior of the walls. In other words, they were viewed as part of the sacred territory of the Temple.

I do think the walls represented some of the "buildings of the Temple." But this would *not* include the Retaining Walls, which were on the outside of the plaza, beyond the walls of the Outer Court.

 

[Timtofly]

I don't believe that's correct. There were buildings, or rooms (one can consider them to be "buildings"), that were inside of the perimeter and gates. You can view Ezekiel's temple (40-48) as indicating this, though I'm not sure what Herod's temple specifically looked like. Check this out: HERE

It is not known exactly what the Temple looked like. No drawings of it exist, and no thorough archaeological excavations at the site of the temple have been done. It is believed that the Temple was not a single building but a series of precincts and courtyards, one inside the other, with a sanctuary with important religious objects at the center. Some have speculated that this sanctuary was enclosed by a monumental 80-foot-high tower.

At any rate, I take Jesus at his word, whether "buildings" plural referred to the addition of porches, as distinct buildings connected to the main building of the Temple, or separate rooms built onto the perimeter walls or inside the gated entrances themselves. I simply believe Jesus said "all Temple buildings would be leveled," without meaning to apply this to all works of engineering in connection with the Temple plaza. The Retaining Wall, including the Western Wall, would *not* be included in the Temple buildings that would be razed, in my opinion.

So we've probably said all we can say, and should probably leave it at that until more information is available?

All of the buildings associated with one lot or acreage are united by their relation to the singular property they are located on. But Jesus specifically spoke of "temple buildings," and not buildings associated with the temple plaza. There were buildings on the plaza that were not connected to the specified sacred territory of the Temple. The Temple area was defined by the prescribed walls of the courtyard, which were themselves viewed as sacred.

I don't know how you know if there were rooms in the Temple area that could not be viewed as "other buildings?" The porch could've been distinct from the specified biblical temple, which consisted strictly of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Solomon certainly expanded upon the original Tabernacle in his erection of his Temple! And the 2nd Temple was likely to be the same.

Furthermore Ezekiel's temple, which was an idealized future temple, contained other rooms, or buildings inside the walls, and not strictly on the exterior of the walls. In other words, they were viewed as part of the sacred territory of the Temple.

I do think the walls represented some of the "buildings of the Temple." But this would *not* include the Retaining Walls, which were on the outside of the plaza, beyond the walls of the Outer Court.

You quoted that it was a series of courtyards, meaning that all the buildings were included.

There were no outer walls not part of the temple complex, even according to your source. The buildings themselves were the outer walls sitting on that foundation in question. The only building that sticks out was the Antonio Fort. But there was no open plaza outside of the Temple complex. The buildings of the temple were the perimeter walls. The Temple itself being an inner and outer room. Not an inner and outer building.

Saying one building was more complex does not mean you can then subtract other buildings you don't think relevant.

No matter what people say or think the eastern wall of the Temple complex was the eastern wall of the city itself. There were no other buildings not pertaining to the Temple in that direction. If you think there was only a wall, ok. But no one else thinks that. There was an Eastern Gate, so obviously it was a gate, not a building. But still part of the Temple Complex. Many think that the temple sat on the western wall itself. Obviously you must not think it did.

"In this period, however, we should always remember that there is only one Temple and that's the one Temple in Jerusalem. The building itself was very small. The actual building of the Temple could fit inside the infield of any baseball stadium. However, the large structure all around it, the large plaza, the porticos, the columns, the staircases, all of that, were built up by Herod the Great on a monumental scale, filling up, I think something like ten football fields...."

That is from your source. So if you say buildings, that would be everything, and most of them sat on the perimeter walls and acted as part of the wall itself. A buildings foundation is still the bottom stones. There were no "walls of an outer court". Those buildings were the walls of the outer court.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You quoted that it was a series of courtyards, meaning that all the buildings were included.

There were no outer walls not part of the temple complex, even according to your source. The buildings themselves were the outer walls sitting on that foundation in question. The only building that sticks out was the Antonio Fort. But there was no open plaza outside of the Temple complex. The buildings of the temple were the perimeter walls. The Temple itself being an inner and outer room. Not an inner and outer building.

Saying one building was more complex does not mean you can then subtract other buildings you don't think relevant.

No matter what people say or think the eastern wall of the Temple complex was the eastern wall of the city itself. There were no other buildings not pertaining to the Temple in that direction. If you think there was only a wall, ok. But no one else thinks that. There was an Eastern Gate, so obviously it was a gate, not a building. But still part of the Temple Complex. Many think that the temple sat on the western wall itself. Obviously you must not think it did.

"In this period, however, we should always remember that there is only one Temple and that's the one Temple in Jerusalem. The building itself was very small. The actual building of the Temple could fit inside the infield of any baseball stadium. However, the large structure all around it, the large plaza, the porticos, the columns, the staircases, all of that, were built up by Herod the Great on a monumental scale, filling up, I think something like ten football fields...."

That is from your source. So if you say buildings, that would be everything, and most of them sat on the perimeter walls and acted as part of the wall itself. A buildings foundation is still the bottom stones. There were no "walls of an outer court". Those buildings were the walls of the outer court.

1st, I have been there and know what I've seen of the area. 2nd, there's a lot I don't know, about the 2nd temple, Herod's improvements, etc. 3rd, I do know a lot about the biblical tabernacle dimensions. I wonder how much you know about this because I can't really follow your arguments very well--they seem to presuppose things that aren't true about these things.

1st, the Bible prescribed walls separating the courts and the buildings that were sacred from the profane areas outside. These weren't just buildings--they were walls.

2nd, I discount foundations at ground level because Jesus specifically referred to stones of buildings that were to be thrown down. They can't be thrown down if they are retaining walls or at ground level.

3rd, I'm not sure how Jesus intended to distinguish buildings (plural) from one another inside the sacred area. The sacred area would indeed include the walls separating the holy area from the profane area. The buildings could've meant the outer walls, the porches, rooms, quarters of various kinds for priests, and the sanctuary itself, which included both holy place and holy of holies. (you need not explain what it looks like to me--I know).

Finally, I believe the walls enclosing the sacred area were inside of the larger plaza area. I think the plaza extended beyond the walls of the courtyards and temple buildings. When I say "temple complex" I am referring only to the sacred area--not any area on the plaza that extended beyond the walls enclosing the sacred area.

There were indeed buildings outside of the walls enclosing the sacred area, and on what I call the temple plaza. But the temple plaza, as I use the term, is not synonymous with the temple complex. The temple complex includes only the sacred area, whereas the temple plaza extended beyond this area to include outside buildings on the same plaza.

I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from? We don't have to agree, but we should at least understand each other?