Comparing the Main Temple of Tenochtitlan with Christian Jerusalem
I am just now realizing my error on the graphic image, but let me lay out the theory...
I strongly suspect that the naming convention of the ancient Aztec Atzacoalco, "Chalice of Ishtar", or Chalice of Creation, or plausibly "Temple of Osiris", in Tenochtitlan, Valley of Mexico, is amazingly similar with the modern naming of what is now the "Al Aqsa "Mosque in Jerusalem. If the two city layouts, Tenochtitlan and Old Jerusalem, are the same, then I believe the Atzacoalco temple of ancient Jerusalem seems to occupy the positional area of what is now the "Temple of the Mount" in Jerusalem. The physical location of the Al Aqsa Mosque is 500 feet South of the Temple of the Mount.
The graphic must be changed, and I apologize, and highlights another of the 10,000 reasons for myself and my wife to visit Jerusalem in person, it is an absolute necessity.
Of course, the architecture of Jerusalem has been radically changed, and the landscape position has changed with wars and revolutions and politics, but the fundamental naming convention seems to match, and I am not sure why. This needs much more research by competent researchers and historians, of which I am not.
I believe the city layouts may have been identical landscapes at one time, just my opinion.
Comparing the Main Temple of Tenochtitlan with Christian Jerusalem
I am just now realizing my error on the graphic image, but let me lay out the theory...
I strongly suspect that the naming convention of the ancient Aztec Atzacoalco, "Chalice of Ishtar", or Chalice of Creation, or plausibly "Temple of Osiris", in Tenochtitlan, Valley of Mexico, is amazingly similar with the modern naming of what is now the "Al Aqsa "Mosque in Jerusalem. If the two city layouts, Tenochtitlan and Old Jerusalem, are the same, then I believe the Atzacoalco temple of ancient Jerusalem seems to occupy the positional area of what is now the "Temple of the Mount" in Jerusalem. The physical location of the Al Aqsa Mosque is 500 feet South of the Temple of the Mount.
The graphic must be changed, and I apologize, and highlights another of the 10,000 reasons for myself and my wife to visit Jerusalem in person, it is an absolute necessity.
Of course, the architecture of Jerusalem has been radically changed, and the landscape position has changed with wars and revolutions and politics, but the fundamental naming convention seems to match, and I am not sure why. This needs much more research by competent researchers and historians, of which I am not.
I believe the city layouts may have been identical landscapes at one time, just my opinion.