All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2020 - Jim Fetzer
42:27
The Real Deal (26 March 2020): Nick Kollerstrom expands his research on "The Wailing Wall"
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer with a Real Deal Special Report, a sequel with Nick Kohlrstrom, who may be my favorite person in the whole world, because he's done such brilliant work on a wide range of subjects, including, for example, the London 7-7 subway bombings, where his book Terror on the Tube, now in its third edition, shattered the case, as Nick did on the occasion of the event by discovering a train from Luton had been canceled.
So that the young Muslim lads who'd been lured into playing a role in what was supposed to be a drill couldn't even be at the tube stops when the explosives took place exactly in accordance with a Peter Power scenario.
Stunning stuff.
Nick is here following up on his previous presentation about the Lost Temple in Jerusalem, which involves many historical anomalies.
Nick, it's great to have you back.
Yeah, OK, Jim.
It's great to be back here again.
Shall we go to the first slide then?
Yes, indeed.
Here we have it.
OK, today I'd like to look at a situation which is threatening, as it were, the Third World War.
It's threatening world peace in a big way because Jews believe they had some terrifically important ancient temple which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD It's been going for centuries, the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and the whole religion was focused around this temple.
The Jews had to come every year to Jerusalem, to this temple, and this was like the centre of the universe.
And there's a big movement today to rebuild that temple, and Donald Trump seems to be endorsing it.
And the only trouble is, as we looked at the other week, there's a big, very, very sacred Islamic dome right there.
We've got a clash, a political clash at the moment, and the last session we looked at how it goes back to 3,000 years, the story of what happened and what really didn't happen.
So I'm arguing that the strangest, the biggest mistake ever in archaeology, that's what it's been called, was Jews forgetting where their temple was.
It really, really isn't where they think it is.
OK, if we just go back to the first slide, this is a map combining different periods of history.
Down at the bottom you see what is, say, 7th century BC, called the Old City of David.
OK?
And it's only 12 acres and it's got walls around it.
And that, obviously, in the beginning had the Jewish Temple in it, right?
Now, as Jerusalem gradually grew, it became more and more a major city.
At the time of Jesus had about 200,000 people living there, and the Romans built a big fortress north of that city, and Romans always choose the tops of hills to place their fortresses.
And they had a legion there, a huge Roman camp.
So what you see up in the top part of this diagram is something roughly rectangular, and I'm arguing that was the 10th legion, and it's called Fort Antonia, where it was.
OK?
So there's a difference in historical perception, and now that Muslim dome of the rock, which you can see in the middle of the temple mound, So the words here are very confusing and charged with meanings which might be illusory.
That name Temple Mount, it practically tells you that there's a temple there, which there never was.
So let's be careful with what words we're using.
That is Fort Antonia, the old Fort Antonia, due north of the old city of Jerusalem.
Right, next slide.
Right, now these are one or two historical notes.
I expect readers will be familiar with the Bible story in Luke, that Jesus was walking past this temple, for example, and they saw it was a very beautifully adorned, richly plush temple, and he said, every single stone will be knocked down.
That's what Christians believe that he said.
If you're a sceptic, you'll say that that Luke Gospel was written after the event happened, 70 AD.
So I'm not trying to promote religion to anyone here, OK?
But that is an immensely potent prophecy.
It's in all three Gospels, and that was, as it were, fulfilled.
Let's look at a couple of other quotes.
Tacitus is a real Raman historian, living just around the time, so he would have seen it happen.
And here is his words about where the temple was.
In Jerusalem, the sort of Temple of Immense Wealth, first came the city of its fortifications, then the Royal Palace, then, within the innermost defences, the Temple itself.
So he's saying, in his lifetime, the Temple was within the city, within the Royal Palace.
OK?
And let's just go back a bit further in time.
Initially, it was a rather shabby, run-down structure, 20 BC, when Herod, who's called the Great, revamped it all.
And he made the Temple much bigger, nice gleaming white marble, and he put gold stuff all around it.
So Herod, he thought he was going to please the Jews, right?
And so he did up a lot of stuff in Jerusalem, the streets and buildings.
That's why it's called the Great, because of all these building projects.
So the Temple was done up by the Romans shortly before they destroyed it, which is quite ironic and strange.
Right, next slide.
Okay, now we looked at what is called today the Temple Mount, and this is where Jews are campaigning and wanting to take it over.
They believe it's their sacred spot.
So there's a terrific lot of pressure now building up.
This is a very sacred spot.
Why is it sacred?
Well, that's quite hard to say.
Ask Muslims, why is this a sacred spot for them?
There's a Dome of the Rock there, which is that, that's what you're looking at, and then there's also a mosque.
So there's two Muslim things on that big, it's 36 acres, it's huge, a huge level ground, and why do Muslims, Muslims claim that it's part of Muhammad's heavenly tour, when he had a vision or riding to heaven or something on a horse, That he stopped down here.
So it's part of the Islamic story.
And when the Jews took over Jerusalem in 1967, they initially overrun the place, right?
And then the Muslims said, look, there's one billion Muslims, we will be absolutely livid if you try and take this over.
So the Jews backed off.
So it's, as it were, a brute force threat.
Muslims have got this control of this square, okay?
In the last session we went over the way in which archaeologists, for the last 50 or 60 years, have been endlessly searching for the so-called Temple of Solomon, which is described in great detail in the Old Testament.
It's supposed to be in Jerusalem in the 10th century BC.
And basically they can't find any trace of it.
There's absolutely no evidence for any temple, any existence of a king called Solomon, or any empire.
So all the discussion, if you read any discussion about where was the temple or where should the temple be, it's all framed in terms of people seeing it in terms of this Temple of Solomon, which is very strange, right?
You're a professor of logic, Jim, right?
So this is looking at the difference between what exists and what does not exist.
The archaeology and all the correspondence and stuff at the time doesn't show this as existing at all.
There was no state of Israel at that time.
There was no Judea.
There was no state of Israel at that time, there was no Judea, there was no kingdom, no king,
and that all developed a century or two later.
You're absolutely right, Nick.
I mean, there's relative weight of evidence.
When you have a narrative that may or may not be authentic, it may be mythology rather than historical fact, not substantiated by the relevant archaeological, geological, and other historical evidence that it has to be consigned to that category of mythology.
Yeah.
It seems to me that your case in relation to the belief of the Temple of Solomon has been well made, and therefore what we're looking at is a visual depiction of a fantasy.
Yeah, yeah, right.
But he's like the best-known monarch in all the world.
All the stories about King Solomon, you know.
And a temple, his temple is in Masonic, Freemason lore.
So it's part of a collective Western imagination, and I think it needs a great effort to say, look, we don't need this any longer.
It never was.
And because world peace is threatened so much by what temple is where in Jerusalem, we need to be a bit more realistic.
That's the way I put it.
OK?
Right.
Shall we go next?
No problemo.
This wall here, this is the famous wall that people are praying to.
This was taken over by Jews in 1967, and obviously, as we saw in the last session, a massive amount of praying and demotion goes on in front of this wall.
It's almost frightening the way people come from all over the world, they want to pray to this wall.
And if you ask any of them why they're praying to it, it's because of the idea that there was some sort of big temple behind it, Solomon's Temple.
And I'm suggesting that This was just a Roman fortress behind this, so Jews are praying to something which they would have utterly despised in their own historical time, a Roman fortress.
That's what this is part of.
Now, is this also known as the Wailing Wall, Nick?
Yeah, this is the Wailing Wall, the Wailing or Western Wall, and you have to wear a skullcap to come there.
Only men are allowed to pray there, I think.
Women have to go somewhere else.
What's the theological or other explanation for disallowing women to pray at the Wailing Wall when it has such great symbolic significance within the framework of theology?
Yeah, well, I think Jews, first of all, I think they're instructed not to pray to anything of brick or wood, stone or wood.
I think they're not supposed to do that at all.
The Old Testament is very male-oriented.
Women don't have a lot of rights and don't generally get mentioned except for childbirth.
And I think this is a very outrageous expression of that male chauvinist attitude.
So would you say this is true in Judaism generally, that women have a second-class status, Nick?
Well, I wouldn't dare comment about modern Judaism.
I'm just saying in the Old Testament.
This clearly is a manifestation of giving primacy to males over females.
Yeah, yeah it is.
This is a wall that doesn't belong to them, they didn't build it at all.
Okay, now here you get this imagination of what we talked about as Solomon's Temple.
This I think is like the official, if you go to the museum in Jerusalem for the temple, The Temple Museum, you will see a mock-up looking a bit like this.
And probably, maybe what they intend to build, if they could build it, would be a bit like this.
And they sort of imagine, this is what's called the Second Temple, is what Herod the Great built, or he enhanced it, as we saw.
So that is what's called the Second Temple.
So this is a mock-up, and I want to put this on that large flat surface, which I'd say was basically a Roman fort, because it's, as it were, all that is left.
Once Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, centuries later, that big plateau, platform, was all that was left.
And so they kind of imagined that that was where the temple had been.
Right, this again shows us the imagination.
You'll find this everywhere you look, everywhere on the web or any book you get about what the Wailing Wall is and where the temple is.
So down in the corner here, It's the Wailing Wall that's on the bottom left hand side, right?
Western side.
Yeah, around there.
That is where people are praying to, is the Wailing Wall.
And what they imagine up the top here, where it says A, you can see it says Antonia Fortress.
Yeah, A. Right, A. They imagine that that is where the Romans were.
As if the Romans would build some little fortress for themselves, which could only keep a few hundred people at the most, and build this huge stadium thing just so Jews could put their temple there.
That is what is imagined.
So this building here, C, is the imaginary, this is a Bible history website, it's what they imagined the temple was, Imagine the Jews somehow walked about here, whereas actually Romans and Jews would not interact.
They certainly wouldn't share any space at all.
If the Roman Tenth Legion had this as its fortress, they'd be guarded.
There's no way that Jews or local residents of Jerusalem could potter over and come into this fortress.
So I'm saying that That big temple there is imaginary and might as well just look outside.
It says E. Oh, Court of the Gentiles.
So they're imagining that there's a boundary here and Gentiles are allowed here and only Jews are allowed in the inside of the temple.
So they're kind of imagining that non-Jews can potter around on the outside here.
Here is what they're imagining the Roman fortress was.
If you look at Wikipedia, what was the Antonia Fortress?
You've got this tiny little bit on the edge here.
That's up there.
A reconstruction of what that's supposed to have been.
Yeah, that's a reconstruction.
You can see, you can't possibly have a legion.
A legion is basically 10,000 soldiers, 6,000 soldiers, 4,000 ancillary staff.
There's no way you could even have a... you might get one-tenth that number there, but it's preposterous to imagine that Romans would build that thing and this far, far larger thing of some sort of temple for the Jews.
That's a radically imbalanced viewer.
OK, so now we're going back into distant history now.
And once again, I'm afraid, well, we've got different bits of history put together in this diagram.
Here on the left is the Old City of David, right?
And somebody's imagined a Solomon's Temple type huge temple there.
I doubt if there was any temple as big as that.
I'd say that's a greatly exaggerated image of the temple.
And then here you've got the big Roman fort.
You can see all the huts where the Romans would live.
This is where the Dome of the Rock now is.
That is the kind of bit of rock on which the whole thing was built.
That's just the highest part of the mountain, Dome of the Rock, I think.
So it's different time scales put together here.
I hope that's not too confusing.
And there's a 600 feet interval stayed between the Old City of Jerusalem and where the Temple used to be, and the Roman Fort.
That is basically the gap.
So when there was a war going on, the Romans and Jews fighting together, that area was contested.
And of course this is a more detailed version of the slide with which we began.
Yeah, yeah.
It's just showing different aspects of that.
Yeah, right.
This is another picture of the very old, early city, which came to be called David's City, City David.
And we now bring in this idea of a spring of water, which is all important.
It's on the east side of the city here, Somewhere in the middle or towards the top.
And that is the reason why the city exists.
The whole city can only exist because of this source of water.
And so that's very important in terms of where the temple was.
Because as we'll see, the priests needed fresh running water for the temple.
That was absolutely essential.
Now the funny names here.
The whole mountain here is Mount Moriah, and that is what's often called Zion in the Old Testament.
God says, My mountain of Zion, Mount Moriah.
So it's different words.
And the Roman Temple is right up the top here.
I think we looked at this last week.
Sorry, the Roman Temple will be built on top of the mountain there, so it's not yet here in this picture.
Right, now let's look at Important testimonies about where the temple was.
The only important thing is that a temple had to be where water was flowing.
You didn't put a temple at the top of a mountain.
There's no history or tradition of putting a temple at the top of a mountain, right?
Aristeas, I'm not sure quite how reliable, his earliest source, he wrote some letter, I think it was a Jew in There's an inexhaustible supply of water because an abundant spring gushes up from within the temple.
This is a Jew writing about how great Jerusalem was, and so that is an early statement outside the Bible that there's got to be a spring within the temple.
Within the area, actually, technically, right?
Within the temple area, yeah.
So you've got Bible quotes, the family shall flow from the house of the Lord, Ezekiel, a kind of visionary vision of the temple, the door of the temple, there was water flowing from under the threshold of the temple, faced east.
So we saw how the water was on the eastern side of the old city.
So that's quite important for the geography.
And Tacitus, he's a real Roman historian, I think we'll go to this.
A temple of immense wealth, and the temple itself, it contains an inexhaustible spring.
So that's the all-important thing.
In Jewish religion, you have sacrifices of animals maybe every day.
It's a bit like the butcher shop was next to the temple, you know.
In Jewish religion, you had to drain out the blood from the animals before you ate it, right?
So, you know, blood absolutely, you know, blood everywhere.
And you had to have running water to clean it out.
And the priest had to be purified by running water.
So there's no way you could have a temple apart from the running water.
So this is a key thing which defines where the Jewish temple was.
Again, this is an imaginary, very old diagram.
And that's the highest part of this Mount Moriah, as we saw.
That's where, later on, the Romans built their fort.
There might have been some sort of palace there.
I'm not sure.
Herod's had a palace there.
I'm not sure how old it was.
And here is the spring.
So, somewhere around there would have been the old temple.
The spring would have been in the valley, right?
Oh, the spring is in the valley, yeah.
Yeah, right.
Okay.
Now, Josephus...
Describe the amazing process of literally the city of Jerusalem being destroyed.
This is the worst thing that ever happened to the Roman Empire.
Somehow the Jews annoyed the Roman Empire sufficiently that they wiped out the city and one million Jews.
It's just hard to believe.
I think at some point the Jews Overcame the Legion, the 10th Legion.
I think they were beaten in 66 AD by Jews, driven out.
And so 70 AD, there was about four Roman legions came up and they set siege, literally set siege to Jerusalem, the whole city.
Okay, here's what he recalls.
It was thoroughly laid even with the ground, By those that dug it up to the foundation, that was left nothing to make those that came there believe it had never been inhabited.
So the great city of Jerusalem, mighty famed monks were mankind, so it was just gone.
But the Tenth Legion was still there, right?
So it's important, in terms of the prophecy of the Temple being destroyed, that the whole Fort Antonia was still there after The destruction of the city, that's the important thing.
The temple was in the city so it was destroyed.
We've seen this before, right?
This is the official image in Jerusalem.
It's what they want to put there now.
They've got this fantasy idea that they had a temple there in the middle of The highest point of Mount Moriah.
So there's no spring anywhere near this temple?
Absolutely not.
It's the highest point of Mount Moriah and I'm saying that world peace depends on Israelis realising that there's no way whatsoever the temple could have been here, plunked in the middle of the Roman fort.
There's a very good new book by Bob Cornuke, just called Temple.
I'll just read out what he says about this paradox.
This is a basic paradox, he puts it very well.
Paintings, renderings and models of the Temple today all show a glorious white-pillared temple perched on top of a 36-acre Temple mound platform.
And then they awkwardly add a small, almost unnoticeable Roman fort at the northwest corner.
Why would the Romans, who are controlled perfectionists, allow a Jewish worship centre to be constructed that is far mightier in stature and defence bulwarks than their own much smaller fortress?
Does anyone think that after building this huge castle-like structure for the Jews, with thousands of massive stone blocks, some as large as a big truck, that they would then build a subordinate-sized fort and stick it in the corner like you've got a tiny garage next to a sprawling mansion?
The concept simply violates all logic.
That's why it's unreasonable.
It's a bit of a preposterous conjecture, Nick.
I think he makes an excellent point based on the most elementary aspects of what is claimed to have been the heretofore existing structures.
Yeah, yeah.
So Bob Cornew, he's a sort of very hands-on fellow.
He goes out to visit these places and talks from his personal experience.
There are other books about the... I was telling that a bit more sort of academic, but this fellow's got a very Hands-on, direct experience, which I think is valuable.
So I think this is coming into our consciousness today, that it does matter and people will look again at what happened after Jerusalem was destroyed for many, many centuries.
It just wasn't there and nobody had a clue where anything was really.
I think in this 21st century, we're just getting a bit of realistic geography now.
I hear a bit of common sense reasoning about whether it's plausible to suppose that structures existed in such proximity in relative quantitative proportion as to really render the depiction a fantasy.
Yeah, yeah, right.
Yeah, I mean I think a lot of the A lot of Bible stories are kind of made up or exaggerated, but obviously there is some historical truth there.
And so it seems to me that here we really need to try and have dialogue, try and imagine dialogue with different faiths.
Can they talk together?
Can they meet together and talk together about what temples exist in Jerusalem?
There seems to be more bloodshed in Jerusalem than any other place on earth.
More bloodshed.
So initially it was called a City of Peace, but that didn't quite work out.
And we've got to see if we can somehow resolve this.
Jews are now preparing all the preparation, detailed preparations for this new temple, with the materials they're going to use and the red heifer they need to breed.
And billions of American taxpayer dollars to finance it.
Absolutely, yeah.
Well, there are loads of American Christians who believe some sort of prophecy will be fulfilled when this temple is built.
I mean, I think they've got to find the right spot to build it.
They can't just put it in a Roman fortress.
The problem is that it's already occupied by another structure that is of immense meaning to Muslims.
Yeah, right, exactly, yeah.
So let's just look at this.
There's a strange mistranslation in Josephus' history.
He says, A legion.
He's talking about a legion of soldiers stationed in Fort Antonia, right?
And because everyone thought it was just that little tower, they translated it as a cohort.
Now that's only one tenth as many.
And a Roman cohort stood over the cloisters of the temple.
Now Josephus wrote in Greek, okay?
Greek.
So this Roman here is mistranslated, or deliberately put in wrongly.
Stante Cohorte Romana Superboticum.
So that's centuries old, that's a centuries old error from the 17th century.
So people have been reading wrongly for centuries that there was a cohort of Roman soldiers, that's just about several hundred.
Well what use would that have been?
You can't possibly look after Jerusalem with a few hundred soldiers.
So this is a very strange mistranslation, which again is only just being discovered that Josephus stated a legion was ported there, an entire Roman legion, and it was like a miniature city, a self-contained city really, with all the different things they needed in that
The point you've made about the Fortress as shown being far too small, too modest in scale, to have possibly supported 10,000 personnel, soldiers and support staff, further undermines the plausibility of the account we've been given.
Yeah, yeah.
This deliberate mistranslation of Josephus was to fit in with that picture of that little The fortress in the corner, as if that was where they lived.
So I think it's time that we translated the word correctly and realised what it means.
Because Jerusalem is rather unstable.
You see, at the big festivals, they'd have maybe two million Jews swarming into the Temple at Passover, swarming into Jerusalem.
And for whatever reason, the Romans wanted to maintain law and order there, so they had a whole legion, 10,000 troops there, to be on the safe side.
Now, Jones is rather obscure.
He's a Jewish historian, and it's quite difficult to figure out what he's talking about.
So I don't know if we can make sense here.
He's distinguishing between the temple and the citadel, which we call Fort Antonia.
He's calling it a citadel.
This says it was built by kings of the Hasmodean race.
That was what was there initially, before Herod did it.
The work of King Herod demonstrates natural magnanimity, and then he says the inward parts, that's the huge space, 36 acres of Fort Antonia, Had the largeness and form of a palace.
All kinds of rooms, courts, palaces.
It might seem to be composed of several cities.
Well, he's exaggerating here.
It wasn't that big, you know.
But it's saying how huge it was.
And also four other distinct towers at the four corners.
Well, we've seen those, haven't we?
So, 70 cubits high.
And from the southeast corner, you could view the temple.
So, the temple was south of this whole fortress, and you could see it from the corner.
So it does sort of make sense, doesn't it?
Yeah, relative location, but not in terms of quantitative properties.
It sounds quite fantastic, but on the other hand, it might have been, had it been of these dimensions, sufficient to accommodate the 10,000.
Yeah, yeah.
Anyway, so there's a join between These two parts, the Old City of Jerusalem and the Fortress, too close to the Temple, passages, the guards could go through them.
So to watch out during festivals, the Romans could run through these passages from where they were to the Temple.
So there's a gap of several hundred feet.
Right, so I think that does sort of make sense, yeah.
That's just showing again, that's what Joseph was talking about.
You can see the gap, you can see the connection of the Roman fort with where the temple was, yeah.
In this vicinity, Nick, right?
Yeah, that's right, yeah.
Okay, next.
Right, now...
I'm calling this the Holocaust.
This is the only time somebody wanted to wipe out Jews in history.
There are other stories about it.
The Bible claims to wipe out all the first born Jews or whatever, but I don't think that was historical at all.
This is the only time when Jews sufficiently annoyed an empire that an extermination policy was applied to them.
There's two different versions.
Josephus says a million were wiped out.
Tacitus says 600,000 were wiped out.
So it was a lot.
It was a whole city besieged.
And after that it was just a farm with cattle when there hadn't been a city of Jerusalem.
Here's an eyewitness.
This is just a few years after the Roman War.
It, the city, is now demolished to its foundations, nothing left but the camp of the Romans that have destroyed it, which still dwells there.
So, if you look at Jerusalem now, he said, all that's left is the Roman camp.
And Josephus' comment, he says, after all visitors wonder why a camp was built there, to guard such an empty and desolate area.
So, it's a very, very extraordinary historical thing.
The city was wiped out.
Anyway, so that is just relevant in terms of how the misconception came about of Jews not knowing where their own temple is.
This is basically the process by which they forgot where the temple used to be.
Right, well these are just three modern books on the subject.
This Martin book started it all off.
All these people now derive from this original book, and I recommend the Bob Carnuke book, The Temple.
I mean, these are all rather religious.
I think we need a discussion, a debate, with monotheistic religions trying to meet together, but also archaeologists who will discuss what is realistically there.
We want to have civil conversation, so that it's of interest to Christians too.
Christians aren't quite so bothered, in my experience, about exactly where things were, you know, whereas Jews are.
And these are just videos online you can watch, of the Temple, whatever.
And here's one giving the opposite view, The Temple really was on the Temple Mount, so I think there's room for constructive discussion here, yeah.
Nick, it seems to me this would be a suitable subject for a conference or a symposium.
We did one, of course, on debunking the War on Terror at Friends House.
It seemed to me you'd want a very reputable Muslim scholars, as well as Jewish and Christian, participate in this event, but it seems to me something that ought to be done.
Well, I think that's a wonderful idea, Jim, to help bring about world peace, especially if you could get some Jewish scholar to comment on it.
I mean, they don't have to agree with each other, but, you see, all those books I put up there, I recommend, they all totally accept Solomon's Temple, right?
All their discussion is about where was Solomon's Temple?
That's the wrong place to start.
You start off with the evidence, whatever else you've got, that there used to be a temple in Jerusalem, but it didn't have the terrific, grandiose, fantastic scale of Solomon's Temple.
If you don't start off with Solomon's Temple, I think you can have a more realistic picture of what did exist.
And I think all the world needs that now.
Nick, let me make a proposition.
You figure out who might be the best participant.
I will reach out to contact them and send them copies of the two video discussions we have on the subject, if they would be interested in participating.
If we can sort out a place and time where that might take place, because it seems to me you've raised an issue of immense, not merely historical, but also political, theological significance here.
That what you are implying might at least contribute to a diminution in tensions surrounding Israel and Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and perhaps make a contribution to stemming the occurrence of another war.
Another war, yeah.
It seems to me, Jim, looking over, modern theistic religions have always been sort of absolute in terms of saying the only peace they believe in Is the piece when everyone believes their story, you know?
That they don't really believe in sharing space with other people.
On the whole, I mean, with some exceptions.
And I think we want to say that different religions have got to get on together now.
That there isn't one that's going to win or take over Jerusalem.
And to get people seeing each other's point of view here.
Also, I think the archaeology.
A wonderful lot of archaeology in the last 60 years.
Unearthing stuff in Jerusalem, you know.
And I think if archaeology comes together with the religious traditions, I think that would be very worthwhile.
Perhaps the authors of the books you cited would be among those who ought to be invited.
Yeah, well two of them are still alive, very much.
And I think Bob Cornuke is quite a personality.
That would certainly be a big issue, yeah.
I can't offhand think of any contacts I've got, but I will certainly mull over it, Jim.
Oh, let us work on this together, my friend.
You are making such magnificent contributions.
Yeah.
Right, yeah.
Okay.
I mean, I think our point of view would be more in terms of the logic and what is the evidence.
Yeah, yeah.
The lines you've laid out here and in our previous interview.
Yeah, and I'm getting, can the different religions Listen to each other's point of view, I think.
Yes, yes.
And what's the role of science and archaeology in resolving theological and religious disputes?
Yeah.
Well, I'm not quite sure if I've got the contacts, Jim, but... Nick, it's a proposal for us to work on, and as we reach out...
We'll no doubt get other leads, but I think it's manifestly worth pursuing.
Yeah.
Okay, Jim.
Let's see what we can do.
Yeah.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, thanking my very special guest Nick Kohlerstrom on The Temple the Jews Forgot.
There's so much going on here of great significance.
We'll be sure to bring any updates that occur.
Meanwhile, let me thank my special guest Nick Colerstrom for his marvellous work, his acumen politically, and his sagacity in general in approaching world issues from a very broad perspective.
Nick, my congratulations once again.
OK, Jim.
All the best.
Take care then.
You too.
▲
Export Selection