Veil Of Temple Rent In Twain

[SolarPowered]

I've always thought of the rending of the veil this way: The veil is the division or barrier between God (in the Holy of Holies) and man (outside). When the veil was rent (by the Atonement), the way was opened up (by the Atonement) for man to return to God.

A parallel could be made to currently-operating temples.

[Bill Hamblin]

but I personally

see no great significance in any of this. I went back and browsed Hebrews and James,

just to see if I could find some resonance there -- but I think we are looking at Lukan

Pauline stuff here and it "speaks" very little to me.

To each his own, I suppose.

The issue of what "speaks" to you may be important to you, but the question here is what was important to the early Christians. Clearly many of them, including Paul saw continued sanctity in the Temple, and, as far as I can tell, neither you nor Theopilus have presented any evidence to contradict that.

[hanks]

Is it possible that the veil being rent is symbolic? Does Josephus say anything about the veil having been physically rent?

The reason I am wondering is because I was told by an Orthodow Jew that if the veil in the temple had been rent it would have been an extremely huge upset and would be recorded in Jewish records. They have no record, either written or oral, of that happening. According to him it is something that could not have been kept quiet and the word would have spread very quickly.

Is there any record outside of the NT that says the veil was physically rent at the time Jesus died?

Thanks, I have wondered about this for years.

Hanks

[alpha]

The veil was mended when Jesus was resurrected and people were still attending the temple and electing replacement Apostles and receiving prophets, even after Jesus had left. But EVs seem to ignor that.

Hi Ray,

It is not so much that EV's ignore that.

It is more so the new instructions that were given by the Apostles to replace certain ordinances. Also when the church grew, sometimes things needed to be done differently.

Also, not everyone who believed saw Jesus being ressurected if this is your point. We have to remember that the Apostles believed that Jesus' ressurection was a temporary thing and that Jesus was returning within their lifetime.

[Jerubaal]

Is it possible that the veil being rent is symbolic? Does Josephus say anything about the veil having been physically rent?

The reason I am wondering is because I was told by an Orthodow Jew that if the veil in the temple had been rent it would have been an extremely huge upset and would be recorded in Jewish records. They have no record, either written or oral, of that happening. According to him it is something that could not have been kept quiet and the word would have spread very quickly.

Is there any record outside of the NT that says the veil was physically rent at the time Jesus died?

Thanks, I have wondered about this for years.

Hanks

Just my initial thoughts:

The veil was only rent for three days, so it would not suprise me if the Pharisees and others who "controlled" the temple kept it shut up because they did not want Christ's followers to use it as evidence.

[maklelan]

That's simply not true at all.

Almost all occurrences of "before the LORD" in the OT are "before YHWH" (Jehovah). A couple are instead, "before the lord God" ("before adonai elohim").

Where do you get your misinformation?

M. Haran, Temple and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (1985),

"In general, any cultic activity to which the biblical text applies the formula 'before the Lord' can be considered an indication of the extence of a temple at the site, since this expression ... belongs to the temple's technical terminology." (p. 26)

Thanks for the source, Professor. By the way, Theo, that book he referenced is an excellent book.

The quote above refers to research regarding the existence of working temples outside of Jerusalem. He says that the phrase "before the Lord" is a general indication of the existence of the Temple wherever the setting of the pericope happens to be, not that the phrase is "generally" associated with Temple worship. That the phrase denotes Temple worship is a given for Dr. Haran. Note - "this expression ... belongs to the temple's technical terminology." He does not refer to the connection as "general", but to the fact that it can be used to show temples were used outside of Jerusalem.

I'm curious, have you completely abandoned your initial argument, or only backed off of it to the point where it's only a matter of whether or not "before the Lord" always refers to being in the Temple, or just generally refers to it? Not the strongest of arguments to be wielding when trying to convince someone that Temple work is completely superfluous in contemporary Christianity. Either way, your original concern is disintigrated.

[alpha]

Scripture says that the Lord or The Spirit of God can not dwell in a house.

[Uncle Dale]

but I personally

see no great significance in any of this. I went back and browsed Hebrews and James,

just to see if I could find some resonance there -- but I think we are looking at Lukan

Pauline stuff here and it "speaks" very little to me.

To each his own, I suppose.

The issue of what "speaks" to you may be important to you, but the question here is what was important to the early Christians. Clearly many of them, including Paul saw continued sanctity in the Temple, and, as far as I can tell, neither you nor Theopilus have presented any evidence to contradict that.

It would be difficult, from this distance in time, to accurately say just what the followers

of Jesus thought about such things. The Jerusalem Church may be the ones you are

thinking of. What Paul's converts, or the community that preserved "Q" or some other

group who honored Jesus then believed, I do not know.

The closest analogy I can think of really is not a very good one -- but I'll mention it

anyway. The fundamentalist "restoration branch" RLDS, who have largely parted ways

with Community of Christ, still honor and respect the Kirtland Temple. In many ways,

I suppose that some of us wish that there were some way we could regain possession

and remove the CoC liberal "temple establishment." So, in that sense we recognize a

"continued sanctity" of the House of the Lord, despite its administration being in

apostate control. Some traditionalist Saints may go there to pray, meditate, and

ponder our past (so long as CoC does not throw us out).

But that analogy does not hold up very well. The fundamentalist RLDS do not look to

that place for an annual day of atonement nor for major festivals when we all gather

there. It is not the only place to find God -- it has no holy of holies -- no ark of the

covenant. We do not go there expecting an endowment of power from on high.

The Deuteronomic terminology for God's relationship with the Jerusalem Temple, is

that He made "His name to dwell there," in contradistinction to an earlier idea that it

was God's dwelling place, or that ther mercy seat was His footstool. I look at the

post-crucifixion Jerusalem Temple in the same way. As for those early Christians

who perceived "continued sanctity" in that place, I think that they looked to the

death and resurrection of Jesus rather than to Yom Kippur for atonement. If some

of them still bought doves for sin offerings, I think that practice died out quickly.

There is of course a "golden thread" of passages in the Christian Bible, where the

symbolic powers and prerogatives of YHWH are superimposed upon Jesus -- his

powers over the waters of chaos, for example. I do not dispute this symbology.

But I think that the LDS want to somehow equate the risen Christ with YHWH in the

Temple, and seem to look to Paul's vision as a proof-text. Go down that road if you

must, but I do not see it going anywhere useful.

Uncle Dale

[alpha]

The veil was mended?!

Chapter and verse, please?

By the way, we know the veil was "mended" or replaced because Josephus discusses it being in the Temple during the Jewish wars nearly four decades after the death of Jesus.

Still looking forward to your explanation of Paul offering sacrifice at the Temple.

Can't find the reference.

Maybe Theo can help.

But wasn't Peter angry with paul for this reason?

Along with other reasons I'm sure.

[alpha]

I am curious as to how the scripture can be interpreted this way when Prophets and Apostles continued to lead the church after Christ.

Only for a short time.

The Apostles had given the authority to others who were not considered Apostles. For the church to grow as fast as it did, more than 12 men had to do the preaching.

[alpha]

You seem to be missing the distinction between "presence" and "dwelling".

You hit this one Right on the Nail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alpha

[maklelan]

Only for a short time.

The Apostles had given the authority to others who were not considered Apostles. For the church to grow as fast as it did, more than 12 men had to do the preaching.

This makes several assumptions.

1. How do you know a universal apostasy is not what ended it?

2. The Apostles ordained another apostle immediately. They made clear that the number 12 had to be maintained. When was the abolition of that standard made official? I can't find it anywhere.

3. More than twelve always preached. Only twelve were given the authority to preside over the church. Are you saying that everyone who preaches must be ordained to preside over the whole church?

4. "For the church to grow as fast as it did, more than 12 men had to do the preaching." The syntax of this sentence means that the number of apostles needed was determined by the number of converts desired. Are you saying that the number of people who joined the church had been predetermined, and the apostles sat down and decided they needed more apostles if they wanted to reach the goal? I'm not sure you got this out the way you wanted to.

5. How does one receive all of the authority (as well as responsibilities and rights) of the apostleship, but get denied the title of apostle? What, then, is the difference between the apostle they ordained in acts and everyone else you refer to?

[Bill Hamblin]

It would be difficult, from this distance in time, to accurately say just what the followers of Jesus thought about such things.

No it

[Uncle Dale]

There may be lots of other things early Christians believed about the Temple. And there may be different things various groups believed. But at least some early Christians believed these two things about the Temple. I find it absurd to suggest that it is possible that no Christian believed these two things, and yet somehow these ideas were still recorded in Acts as Christian beliefs and practices.

OK -- I understand your point.

UD

[alpha]

Only for a short time.

The Apostles had given the authority to others who were not considered Apostles.

[Son]

The veil is rent.

This is a symbol of the veil of unbelief that we all are to rend.

Direct contact with the Father. This is done by following the teachings of Christ and overcoming sin.

The Light of Christ which is given to all men who come into the world.

[Theophilus]

Alpha did a pretty good job responding to your questions.

I just wanted to add one or two points:

This makes several assumptions. 

1. How do you know a universal apostasy is not what ended it? 

As soon as you begin commenting about alleged "assumptions", you introduce an assumption of your own. What "universal apostasy"?! Not only can LDS not demonstrate that an alleged "universal apostasy" even occurred, they can't tell us when it happened.

2. The Apostles ordained another apostle immediately.  They made clear that the number 12 had to be maintained.  When was the abolition of that standard made official?  I can't find it anywhere. 

And the number is maintained, the Eleven and Matthias.

Do you think they don't exist anymore?

They also made clear the qualifications of apostle:

Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

I don't know any LDS "Apostle", who lived in the first century, from the time of John's baptism until Christ's crucifixion, as a physical eyewitness of the resurrection. I've heard LDS argue that their Apostles are "spiritual" eyewitnesses, but that's not what was described in Acts 1.

Theophilus

[maklelan]

1.  How do I know a universal apostasy is not what ended what?

The ending of the apostles or preaching?

The end of the apostleship.

2.  When was the abolition of that standard made official?  I can't find it anywhere. 

Can you find where it was instituted other than Mathias being Judas' replacement?

There was never an abolition of this standard.  This is what LDS often ignore... Jesus called his twelve and we still have the twelve today.  We have the words and the teachings that were given through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus and His twelve Apostles:

Peter                                  Phlip

James                                Thomas

John                                    Bartholomew

Andrew                                Matthew

James                                  Simon

Judas the brother of James

Mathias

We still have a "foundation" of Apostles.  They've never been "lost".  They are still in the book.  I've never met an EV that claims to lack the foundation of prophets and apostles...

Is the above conclusion explicit anywhere in the text, or is it a forced interpretation? I can't find any indication whatsoever that it is explicit or even implicit.

Are Apostles to preside over the church while others do the preaching?

No, they do preaching too, but you don't have to be an apostle to preach. There job is to be a witness to everyone, but nowhere in the text does it teach that the apostleship would be abandoned.

What I am saying is that the chuch grew fast.  More than the 12 apostles were eventually needed to baptize, because we see in Acts 2:41 about 3,000 souls were added to the church in one day.  That's over 250 baptisms per Apostle if one was ill that day.  In those days the Apostles had the authority given to them by Jesus and they in turn transfered that authority to others, elders, and such, that they had been ordained to preach the gospel.  That line of authority is believed by some to not have vanished over time.  Through the power of the Holy Ghost the authority has been and is still present.

And I believe the authority to baptize is not exclusive to the apostleship (or its non-apostle equivelant). They can ordain whomever they want to baptize without increasing the number of apostles at all. John the baptist baptized, but he was never ordained an apostle.

Did I answer all of the assumptions?

I have a concern that you assume the power mentioned in those verses in acts refers to the fullness of the apostloci authority. Where in the text does it state that it is the same power the apostles were given?

[Theophilus]

We still have a "foundation" of Apostles.

[Orpheus]

I find it curious that you reject the beliefs of others by calling it "assumption", yet you feel justified in assertion your own assumption.

Stop berating other posters.

[BCSpace]

It is explicit in that the Eleven and Matthias were ordained as Apostles, and no one else was, and nowhere does it teach that the Eleven or Matthias ever needed to be replaced.

So Acts 14:14 is not in your version of the Bible? Romans 16:7? etc. etc.

It is implicit in the "qualifications" for Apostle, wihch required one to be an eyewitness of Jesus' earthly ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection, indicating that after that generation no one else would qualify.

There is no evidence, "explicit or implicit", that the Apostles were allegedly supposed to be replaced in an ongoing manner, after death. I find it curious that you reject the beliefs of others by calling it "assumption", yet you feel justified in assertion your own assumption.

It is astouding how much you declaim but provide no evidence, no references to support your pov. You couldn't do it with your eternal security hypothesis, you certainly aren't doing it for the apostle question.

[maklelan]

It is explicit in that the Eleven and Matthias were ordained as Apostles, and no one else was

Aye, there's the rub. Was no one else ordained because it was policy, or because they couldn't? Oo was it because they were commanded not to because of the imminent apostasy? Why do you choose one and reject the dozen other explanations? Why do you take a benign event and decide that in it the Lord is dictating a comprehensive treatise on his policy on succession? You assume a whole lot.

nowhere does it teach that the Eleven or Matthias ever needed to be replaced.

Nor does it teach the contrary, but the replacement of Judas to bring the number to 12 again makes it clear that 12 is the required number. Why is that number then abandoned? The scriptures provide no explanation, but you decide that it says (through metaphor and allegory) what will substantiate the claims of your church. You assume.

It is implicit in the "qualifications" for Apostle, wihch required one to be an eyewitness of Jesus' earthly ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection, indicating that after that generation no one else would qualify.

The Bible doesn't say an eyewitness to his "earthly ministry" or his "crucifixion," it says an "eyewitness to his resurrection." Why would you change what the text says? Anyone who is personally ministered to by the living Christ is an eyewitness to his resurrection, so the qualification you fabricate is not restrictive. Paul was a witness of his resurrection, and he considered himself an apostle, although his persecution of the church makes him feel uinworthy of the title. You're simply changing what the text says now.

There is no evidence, "explicit or implicit", that the Apostles were allegedly supposed to be replaced in an ongoing manner, after death.  I find it curious that you reject the beliefs of others by calling it "assumption", yet you feel justified in assertion your own assumption.

Please point out where I said that my belief is based on the Biblical text.

By the by, you still have some explaining to do regarding your erroneous assertion about early Christian temple worship.

[Jerubaal]

Alpha did a pretty good job responding to your questions.

I just wanted to add one or two points:

This makes several assumptions.

[maklelan]

Not only can LDS not demonstrate that an alleged "universal apostasy" even occurred, they can't tell us when it happened.

Is that how truth is determined? An accurate timeline?

OK. Please prove to me that Noah's flood actually happened and show exactly when it happened. If you cannot then we must conclude that it is impossible that it could have happened.

You're up. (Later you can respond to the evidence against your silly little notion about Christian temple worship.)

[Theophilus]

I find your arrogance and ignorance of the scri[ptures to be astounding Theo.

Perhaps after hearing my view, you will realize that my position is hardly one of "ignorance".

The scriptures mention at least 4 additional apostles (see the scriptures that BCSpace mentioned)

"Apostle" is a Greek word meaning, "sent-out-one". It simply means, "missionary", or one sent out to proclaim the gospel.

While I think it is clear from the context (although you are free to disagree) that Jesus and the Bible writers also had a specific connotation for "Apostle" in speaking of "the Twelve", such doesn't preclude the existence of other, missionary, "apostles", nor does it necessitate that all who are called "apostles" are one of the Twelve.

and at least one of them, Paul, did not meet your supposed qualifications that you said Acts 1 supported.

While I don't believe that Paul was one of the Twelve, I think you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that Paul did not meet the requirements. I would say that the Scriptures are silent as to whether or not he was a first-hand witness to Jesus' ministry (although I believe that he was), he certainly lived in the correct time period.

How did Paul and the others become apostles if not to fulfill a vacancy?

They were missionaries, that's how.

That's what "apostle" means: "sent-out-one". "Missionary".

Did it become the quorum of the 16? Did Luke decide to start equivocating in the middle of Acts?

Of course not.

I don't believe Paul was one of "the Twelve".

(And btw, nowhere does the Bible teach anything about "quorums".)

Theophilus