What's new
By:
Advanced search…
My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Second Temple ?

G

GKA

Premium Member
The First Temple built by King Solomon was totally destroyed in 587-586 BCE
After 70 or so years of captivity, the Hebrews were allowed to rebuild their temple around 515 BCE
Herod comes along and destroys that one to build his Temple in 1 BCE which the Romans destroy in 70 AD
My question is, why is King Herods Temple called the second temple ? It was obviously the third temple.
 
G

GKA

Premium Member
LAMason said:
It is not. What is your source for saying that it is?
Click to expand...
LAMason said:
It is not. What is your source for saying that it is?
Click to expand...

Wiki, as well as most other on line sources
I thought they were confusing the temple with the second temple period which includes Herods temple, but Wiki is specifically stating that Herods temple is the second temple
 
Blake Bowden

Blake Bowden

Administrator
Staff Member
JamestheJust said:
While King Solomon had a great empire there has been no artifact found from it.

The more obvious options are:

- it never existed
- it existed in another place
- it existed in another time
- it existed in another place and time.

It would be heretical to consider the similarities of actions and qualities of Solomon the Great and Suleiman the Magnificent.
Click to expand...

http://www.haaretz.com/beta/1.632141
 
  • Like
Reactions: GKA
LAMason

LAMason

Premium Member
GKA said:
Wiki, as well as most other on line sources
I thought they were confusing the temple with the second temple period which includes Herods temple, but Wiki is specifically stating that Herods temple is the second temple
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of Wiki, but here are quotes from the the Wikipedia article entitled “Second Temple” and it clearly refers to the Second Temple as the Temple between 516 BCE and 70 CE and to Herod’s Temple as Herod’s Temple.

“The Second Temple was an important Jewish Holy Temple (Hebrew: בֵּית־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי‎, Bet HaMikdash HaSheni; Arabic: بيت القدس‎: Beit al-Quds) which stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, between 516 BCE and 70 CE. It replaced the First Temple which was destroyed in 586 BCE”

Herod's Temple

“Reconstruction of the temple under Herod began with a massive expansion of the Temple Mount.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple

Can you provide links to some of the online sources that refer to Herod’s Temple as the Second Temple?
 
hanzosbm

hanzosbm

Premium Member
It kind of depends on how you look at it. Herod greatly enlarged the Temple. Did he destroy it? That's a matter of semantics.

My aunt and uncle wanted to build their dream home on a particular lot. The city wouldn't allow for new buildings OR for new woodburning fireplaces to be built. So, they took the current house down to the slab leaving only the firebox of the fireplace, poured additional slab and began construction. Based on the permits, it wasn't a build, it was a "renovation".

My point it, depending on how much was done and how it was viewed, I think you could look at Herod's temple as either the third temple or simply an enlargement of the second. However, when it comes to prophecies of the building of the third temple, I don't think it would qualify as the second temple was standing at the time.
 
LAMason

LAMason

Premium Member
"All Royal Arch Masons recognize the important role Zerubbabel plays in our ritual, but most of us (including the author) know very little about the man himself. We know our Chapters are "erected to God and dedicated to Zerubbabel" - but who was this man? Unfortunately, the Holy Bible provides scant information about the builder of the Second Temple. What little that is known, taken from our Volume of Sacred Law, is summarized in the following paragraphs.

The Temple that Zerubbabel built in Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE lasted longer than the Temples of Solomon and Herod the Great combined."

http://www.royalarchmasonsalberta.c...speslet-library/ram/167-zerubbabel-who-was-he
 
G

GKA

Premium Member
I re read Wiki and can see where my confusion stems, it does describe the technical difference between the second and third temple, yet I did not see where it actually calls Herod's temple the third temple.
Since Herod pulled up the foundation stones of temple number two, I consider that a clear distinction between rebuild and build a new.
Wiki also notes that according to Jewish eschatology, the third temple has yet to be built. ( I'm still confused)
Herod had an agreement with the priest (WIKI again), that the ritual sacrifices would continue during construction, this must be where my confusion comes from.
It appears that some Jewish authorities do not consider Herod's temple to be independent, just a remodel job.
one site is provide a strong indication that Herod's temple is the second temple, Jewish virtual library where they title the article "The Second Temple" yet describe Herod's Temple.
 
hanzosbm

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I was unaware that the foundation stones were pulled up. Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to do some more reading on it.
 
hanzosbm

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I'm not trying to argue, instead I think this conversation is very constructive. But in the article you linked, they said this:

"The 16-foot-thick walls of the Temple Mount are basically retaining walls, built to retain the high pressure of the fill that was dumped between the previous platform and the new Temple Mount wall. This was Herod’s way of enlarging the previous platform to twice its original size."

This seems to indicate (to me anyway) that the foundations of the original temple were left in place. As for how much of the foundation and how much of the temple itself...hard to say. But it seems at least SOME of the temple was there.
In addition, while I have done very little (basically none) reading about it, my understanding is that proponents of the Templar stories believe that while excavating the ruins, they came across things buried in Solomon's Stables. Some of these stories attribute what they found to the time of Solomon. If that is to be believed, it is predicated on the notion that at least part of the first temple still existed/exists.
 
G

GKA

Premium Member
That is a fair conclusion, I do not recall where I read that the foundation stones had been torn up but, since I have no books in my Library on King Solomon's Temple, I must have read it in passing
I should take better notes :)
 
ni3f

ni3f

Registered User
Herod's temple wasn't the "Third Temple." It was a reconstruction of the second temple. There was continuity regarding the sacrifices and temple service.
 
G

GKA

Premium Member
Thats not exactly correct
There was not a continuation of temple sacrifices theough out the 430 or so years between the second temple and that of Herod's
 
G

GKA

Premium Member
The jews were forbidden to perform sacrifices inder the rule of the Seleucids in 167 BCE
 
G

GKA

Premium Member
James, you are right, there is no way to know for sure anything estabilished as historical fact
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top