Oops, sorry, you have found a good quality picture.

But you're a bad man, you're supposed to credit (as I always try to do).

And, while it could have come from Jerusalem it wasn't taken from the priestly establishment but from the Zealots.

By derivative work: Steerpike (talk)Arc_de_Triumph_copy.jpg: user: ??? ????? - Arc_de_Triumph_copy.jpg, CC BY 3.0, Link

BM's picture (as he managed to cunningly conceal in a sloppily presented post!) appears to show a modern reproduction of the Roman frieze.

Arc de Triumph copy.jpg - "Roman Triumphal arch panel copy from Beth Hatefutsoth, showing spoils of Jerusalem temple."

Every possibility its a modern "reconstruction", a virtual forgery. Pictures of the original may show it very different.

No wonder that, when I went looking for pictures of the original, I couldn't find any close-ups whatsoever.

This is the modern and likely inaccurate replica:

The photo is a Getty Original found on Google according to Berry Getty are liars ..

Wonder if the lad from west London would like to challenge Getty in court and tell them their photo is a fake ?

bm

bml00 said:

The photo is a Getty Original found on Google according to Berry Getty are liars ..

Lets see good quality pictures of the original frieze.

Not modern replicas, artfully crafted to support your lies.

When cornered become pedantic ( Goss eg)

When faced with facts create lies and answer like a fool , numbnuts does it all each time every time 

BM

bml00 said:

When cornered become pedantic ( Goss eg) When faced with facts create lies and answer like a fool , numbnuts does it all each time every time 

Lets see good quality pictures of the original frieze.

Not modern replicas, artfully crafted to support your lies.

Shit for brains numbnuts wants to waste more time the pedantic twat http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/179_Arch_of_Titus.html

It is crucified! On a cruzifix.

The only thing Stephanie can preach good is called: BULLSHIT!:>)

Bullsh#t? I thought that was Dick's own turf.