Veil Of Temple Rent In Twain

[maklelan]

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

Fascinating how you can derive from a simple Greek word a bunch of concepts that have nothing to do with the word. Apostle does indeed mean "one who is sent," or "messenger," but "to proclaim the gospel" has absolutely nothing to do with the Greek here. The Hebrew is "malach," and it means the same thing, but it is usually used when referring to an angel. Again, you are inserting your own thoughts into texts that do nothing to support your interpretations.

[Jerubaal]

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.

If Paul was not one of "the" 12, then why do you ascribe to him so much authority for declaring doctrine for all of Christianity? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

[Theophilus]

If Paul was not one of "the" 12, then why do you ascribe to him so much authority for declaring doctrine for all of Christianity? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

I accept the authority of his writings because I believe God inspired them.

Are you trying to claim that one must be one of the "Twelve" in order to have authority?

Theophilus

[maklelan]

I accept the authority of his writings because I believe God inspired them.

Are you trying to claim that one must be one of the "Twelve" in order to have authority?

Theophilus

Authority over the entire church? Of course. Not every missionary has authority over the entirety of the Christian church.

[Jerubaal]

If Paul was not one of "the" 12, then why do you ascribe to him so much authority for declaring doctrine for all of Christianity? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

I accept the authority of his writings because I believe God inspired them.

Are you trying to claim that one must be one of the "Twelve" in order to have authority?

Theophilus

But he did not inspire Clement? Origen? Luther? Oral Roberts? Jimmy Jones? How do you decide such a thing?

[Son]

What Paul was inspired to write may be true.

How Paul's words have been translated, disseminated, and adulterated has caused the confusion.

Rely only on the Spirit not on any mans interpretations of scripture.

[BCSpace]

But he did not inspire Clement? Origen? Luther? Oral Roberts? Jimmy Jones? How do you decide such a thing?

Assuming for just a moment that EV doctrine is Biblical, logic dictates that EVs accept a universal apostasy because their doctrines are not taught by the ECF. The question for them therefore is, who restored the true gospel? Tertullian and Theophilus are too early as they certainly were not trinitarians....

[Neighbor]

I would like to hear everyone's interpretation of this scripture and if it negates the need for prophets and temple worship.

As the apostles wrote of the gift and office of prophets in the Church of Christ it would seem futile to think the temple veil tearing in two to negate that. We know from Hebrews that the Law's work of the Aaronic priesthood was done away with. The veil represented the seperation of God and men, and in Christ that veil is done away with and we have access to come boldly to the throne of grace.

Since Jesus, while the temple was still standing, said that the time was coming when men would not go to the temple to worship God, I strongly believe that we are in the time when He said if two or more are gathered in His name that He is in their midst. As such, the boundries are not the sign over the door, but that those who gather do so in His name and seek to do His will from their heart in truth and love.

Prophets didn't lead Israel in the days of Jesus. After the gospel was first preached in Jerusalem on Pentecost and the Church of Christ was established, Elders were the leaders, teachers were calle to be faithful to the Scriptures, and evangelists to be faithful to preach the only true gospel. The teachers and preachers and prophets were in turn subject to greater judgement than the general membership in that they were to abide in the truth and fulness of the gospel and word of God. That didn't mean to add to it or to take away from it. Hebrews says if one tampers with the gospel a worse fate awaits them than those who would change the commandments of God.

If I were you I'd be careful to believe exactly what Jesus declared as truth while in His earthly ministry and giving the words and doing the things God told Him to.

(the Adam/Michael F.A.I.R. article has me worked up at the moment)

[auteur55]

Since Jesus, while the temple was still standing, said that the time was coming when men would not go to the temple to worship God

I am curious what scripture you are using to make this claim.

[Neighbor]

John 4

Hebrews, 9,10

[urroner]

John 4

Hebrews, 9,10

All of John 4, becaue I looked and couldn't see where it said anyting like that.

Could you please provide the vesrse also in the chpters you listed? I'd realloy appreciate it. Thanks.

[urroner]

How about the temple in Exekiel 41? Has that temple been built yet, if so, where and if not, where will it be built and what is its use?

[freakin a man]

We know from Hebrews that the Law's work of the Aaronic priesthood was done away with.

No such assertion is made as far as I have seen. It does say the Aaronic Priesthood was changed but that is quite different than being done away.

[Neighbor]

Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman. Samaratins worshipped at a temple different than those in Jerusalem. The Jewish temple at Jerusalem was the temple of true worship and Jesus was affirming this, but said of her worship ( as a Samaratin) v 21

.. Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain (Samaritan place of worship), nor in Jerusalem (Jewish temple), worship the Father. You worship what you do not know (Samaritans had it wrong); we (Jews at Jerusalem Temple worship) know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

[Neighbor]

Where in Hebrews does it say the Aaronic priesthood remains in effect? From Hebrews 8 it seems the new convenant necessitates a new priesthood.

We have a High Priest in Jesus Christ. There has always only been one high priest at a time.

I see the Ezekiel temple as being the one Jesus will build on His return or it is the true temple in heaven....?? What do you think? I haven't studied it much.

[Son]

Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman. Samaratins worshipped at a temple different than those in Jerusalem. The Jewish temple at Jerusalem was the temple of true worship and Jesus was affirming this, but said of her worship ( as a Samaratin) v 21

.. Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain (Samaritan place of worship), nor in Jerusalem (Jewish temple), worship the Father. You worship what you do not know (Samaritans had it wrong); we (Jews at Jerusalem Temple worship) know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Perfect

[Zeta-Flux]

Dear Neighbor,

I understood John 4:21 to be speaking about the eventual destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (which would effectively force a cecession of all worship in the temple).

I also understood the temple in Ezekial to be a prophecy of a future, possibly millenniel, temple.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[Neighbor]

It makes my day when we can share good truths in Gods word!!!!!! Makes it all worthwhile:-)

[flavo]

The renting of the viel is very symbolic on many counts.

1. It sybolized that man was no longer seperated from God by death and sin.

That through the atonement man could enter once again through the veil of

God and enter back into His presence.

2. It symbolized the time for man to live the higher law and that man was now able

to officiate for himself in the ordinances of salvation instead of having a priest do

it on his behalf.

3. It symbolized the end of the old law. The rent veil left the inner most part of the

temple exposed for all to see.

The temple continued as a sacred part of the saints faith after Christ. Some of the apostles did more than just teach there, they participated in ceremonies. The scriptures speak of temples that are to come and of those that were prophesied to come that are here today. The renting of the veil is not the call to stop temple worship. If it is that important, God would have told the apostles to preach to the people to stay away from the temple, yet we fond no such teaching. What makes the renting of the veil significant to stop temple services? Maybe it is significant to the fact that all can now participate in temple service!

[journeyman]

Mark 15:38

And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom

Many evengelicals believe this to be symbolic of the end of the old law and the beginning of the new. Where God would speak openly to his children and no longer to prophets.

I would like to hear everyone's interpretation of this scripture and if it negates the need for prophets and temple worship.

Cheers!

-Auteur55

My input is... You are exactly right about no need for prophets and temples.

Of course Mormons will never hear of that. I seriously believe that Mormons only skim the Bible and don't really take it too seriously -- as things are spelled out so plainly and over and over, they seem like they are blind or something. What really get's confusing is when they say that the Book of Mormon supports the Bible.

Consider the following:

The Book of Mormon people are said to have observed "all things according to the law of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24). However, although they are supposed to have been Hebrews, they were descendents of the tribe of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:17) or Manasseh (Alma 10:3), not the tribe of Levi and family line of Aaron, as the Law of Moses dictates (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7), so they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.

The people described in the Book of Mormon operated multiple temples (Alma 16:13; 23:2; 26:29). This violates the dictates of the Old Testament Scriptures on two counts: First, God commanded Israel to build only one temple to reflect the fact that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 12:5,13-14; 16:5-6). Second, the one legitimate temple was to be built in Jerusalem (Zion), the location designated by God (The Old Testament is filled with explicit references to God choosing Jerusalem [Zion] as the place where "His name would dwell" in the temple: for example, 1 Kings 8:44,48; 11:13,32,36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27; 1 Chronicles 28:4; 2 Chronicles 6:6; 7:12,16; Psalm 78:68-69; Isaiah 18:7.

The Mormon Church claims that it is the only true Christian church on the face of the earth, because it alone has "restored" these lost temple practices of original Christianity.

God appointed only one temple to reflect the fact that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 12:5,13-14; 16:5,6). By contrast, the Mormon Church operates many temples, in violation of this command.

Only priests were allowed to enter the biblical temple. Worshippers - even the king of Israel - came no further than the altar of burnt offering in the courtyard. Since non-priests are allowed to enter and participate in Mormon temple activities, this is another point at which Mormon temple practice violates biblical commands.

All activities in the biblical temple were public knowledge. They are spelled out in detail in Scripture (for example, Exodus 30:7-10; Leviticus 4:5-7; 16:1-34; 24:1-9). The Bible warns the Christian against participation in secret activities (Matthew 10:26-27; Ephesians 5:11-12). And Jesus affirmed that He had no secret teachings, "I spake openly to the world... in secret have I said nothing" (John 18:20). In contrast, the Mormon Church insists on keeping its temple rituals secret; since sacred things have always been talked about in the open, sacredness has nothing to do with it. The fact that we are saved by grace completely by the merits of Jesus Christ is sacred but we are commanded to spread knowledge throughout the world.

The Bible sets strict lineage requirements for the Aaronic priesthood. It teaches very explicitly that only men from the tribe of Levi and the family line of Aaron were qualified to serve as priests in the temple sanctuary (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7). The Mormon Church claims to have a restored Aaronic priesthood, but completely ignores this plain lineage requirements of Scripture.

At the end of his ministry, Jesus Christ predicted that the Jerusalem temple was about to be destroyed (Matthew 24:2). He told his disciples: "...verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another..."

This prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70, when the Roman general Titus demolished the temple; it has never since been rebuilt. Elsewhere, Jesus said that temple worship was about to be replaced by a new form of worship without a temple building: "the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him" (John 4:21,23)... By the way, this is one of my favorite scriptures in the Bible.

Before it

[journeyman]

What Paul was inspired to write may be true.

How Paul's words have been translated, disseminated, and adulterated has caused the confusion.

Rely only on the Spirit not on any mans interpretations of scripture.

You must be Mormon to make such a comment. Actually, it has been pretty well proven that the Bible is darn accurate. Thousands of manuscripts have been found to verify this and there are many before the supposed tinkering by the Catholic guys.

Now, the Book of Mormon on the other hand only has one manuscript and we therefore only have that to compare against all the tinkerings that have occurred from that one until our day.

To say the Bible is not accurate is a rather uneducated statement. Further, to even say that the changes of the Book of Mormon are only grammar and punctuation is even more uneducated. I would truly question any Spirit that would say otherwise.

[freakin a man]

What Paul was inspired to write may be true.

How Paul's words have been translated, disseminated, and adulterated has caused the confusion.

Rely only on the Spirit not on any mans interpretations of scripture.

You must be Mormon to make such a comment. Actually, it has been pretty well proven that the Bible is darn accurate. Thousands of manuscripts have been found to verify this and there are many before the supposed tinkering by the Catholic guys.

Now, the Book of Mormon on the other hand only has one manuscript and we therefore only have that to compare against all the tinkerings that have occurred from that one until our day.

To say the Bible is not accurate is a rather uneducated statement. Further, to even say that the changes of the Book of Mormon are only grammar and punctuation is even more uneducated. I would truly question any Spirit that would say otherwise.

Could you enlighten me on how handwritten manuscripts hundreds of years after the original writings prove accuracy?

There are less manuscripts for the Book of Mormon but what does exist is closer to the original. We have about 25% of the original handwritten translation manuscript and entire printers manuscript.

Anyway LDS don't assert that the Bible is not accurate. Just that its not perfect. It is reasonably accurate to fit its needs despite its problems.

[rhinomelon]

Wow, I missed a nice chunk of stuff here. Now that I'm caught up, I just have a couple thoughts.

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.

From a while back, regarding Acts 1 in which Matthias is chosen to replace Judas. I would just point out that Acts does not mention a quorum anywhere, and the Scriptures that Peter uses to justify the replacement do not revolve around a certain number or quorum, but around a specific individual, Judas Iscariot. Peter explicitly states that the Scriptures he quotes are referring to Judas, and not to a simple gap in a quorum. I see no evidence for a specific number that is required to be maintained. The issue is replacing Judas, not filling in a gap. And like someone else already noted, there are around seventeen or eighteen people referred to as "apostles" in the New Testament, including one woman in Romans 16. The idea of a quorum is not to be found, either in the New Testament or the earliest writings of the Church.

Now, as far as the whole temple veil being rent event, I strongly believe that the interpretation put forward by Ray and BC has serious problems with it. Equating Jesus' body with the veil in all cases is simply taking an analogy past the point where it is meaningful.

Some points to make in this regard. First, the book of Hebrews is believed by many to have been written earlier, so the particular tradition of the temple veil being torn is probably not even on the radar at this point.

Second, the book of Hebrews does not even address the Temple in Jerusalem at all; the entire focus of the book is the Old Testament tabernacle, and the Greek reflects this. "Skene" is the Greek word used throughout Hebrews, and is translated "tabernacle" or "tent", obviously referring to the Old Testament tabernacle of Moses' day. "Naos" is the term used throughout the New Testament to refer to the Temple of Jesus' day, and it is not found at all in Hebrews.

Third, to rip Hebrews 10:20 out of context and make it refer to another event in another building in another writing in order to make the point that temples are still necessary completely ignores the greater context of Hebrews itself. The whole point of the book is demonstrating how the earthly tabernacle was just a temporary symbol of the permanent reality in heaven. The earthly tabernacle with its associated sacrifices and priesthood was a "copy" and a "shadow" of the reality in heaven (Heb. 8:4; 9:24; 10:1). The earthly tabernacle is now obsolete (Heb. 7:12; 18-19; 8:6-13), because Christ has now entered the real tabernacle (not built with human hands), and performs the functions of the tabernacle completely and perfectly (Heb. 4:14; 6:19-20; 7:22-28; 9:10-15, 28; 10:12), unlike the duties of the Old Testament priests, which had to be performed year after year (Heb. 7:11, 27; 9:25; 10:1-4, 11) .

Fourth, the author of Hebrews is focusing on the death and suffering of Christ, the shedding of his blood. The resurrection is not figuring into his analogy at the point, so to assume that the author wants to carry the analogy onward to "Oh, but now after Christ went into the heavenly tabernacle by the shedding of his own blood, the veil is stitched up again because he was resurrected, so...never mind all that other stuff I said."

Finally, as the author of Hebrews shows no knowledge of the veil being torn in the Jerusalem temple, it is merely a forced interpretation to take one line out of the writing, apply it to an event outside the author's intention, and then hold that one interpretation over against the foundational message the author was trying to get across. By the context of Hebrews 10:20, the author is speaking of the heavenly tabernacle, demonstrating by analogy that we now have complete access through Christ to the Father. I think LDS apologists need to look elsewhere to find justification for temples in Christian worship and practice.

Just my thoughts. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Oh, yeah, so I post ONCE on the thread and everybody runs for the hills. What, did I forget deoderant??!

Oh wait. Heh, I, uh, did forget deoderant today.

[Jerubaal]

My input is... You are exactly right about no need for prophets and temples.

Of course Mormons will never hear of that.  I seriously believe that Mormons only skim the Bible and don't really take it too seriously -- as things are spelled out so plainly and over and over, they seem like they are blind or something.  What really get's confusing is when they say that the Book of Mormon supports the Bible.

Sometimes I think the same thing about folks such as yourself, as I consider your superficial references to the Bible, and your apparent lack of knowledge of what the Book of Mormon actually says. Let us proceed.

Consider the following:

I'll try, but you know that since I'm a Mormon I'm just going to skip over the things that are spelled out so plainly over and over again, because I'm just blind in terms of exegetical skills.

The Book of Mormon people are said to have observed "all things according to the law of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24). However, although they are supposed to have been Hebrews, they were descendents of the tribe of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:17) or Manasseh (Alma 10:3), not the tribe of Levi and family line of Aaron, as the Law of Moses dictates (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7), so they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.

Had you bothered to read Alma 13, you would see quite clearly that the priesthood held by the Nephites was the Melchizedek priesthood. Take me up on an exegetical battle over what Hebrews 7 really means if you want, but the Book of Mormon peoples had the Melchizedek priesthood, a completely "legitimate" priesthood.

The people described in the Book of Mormon operated multiple temples (Alma 16:13; 23:2; 26:29). This violates the dictates of the Old Testament Scriptures on two counts: First, God commanded Israel to build only one temple to reflect the fact that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 12:5,13-14; 16:5-6).

I read the scriptures you cited, and I must have just been my spuerficial self again, because it gives by no means whatsoever an explicit law against multiple temples. Please show me exactly where in those verses you cited it said such. And could you please also explain why the Jews who ran the Elephantine temple in Egypt, among others, did not see it as a violation of Deuteronomy, and why the elders of Jerusalem even approved the rebuilding of their temple?

Second, the one legitimate temple was to be built in Jerusalem (Zion), the location designated by God (The Old Testament is filled with explicit references to God choosing Jerusalem [Zion] as the place where "His name would dwell" in the temple: for example, 1 Kings 8:44,48; 11:13,32,36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27; 1 Chronicles 28:4; 2 Chronicles 6:6; 7:12,16; Psalm 78:68-69; Isaiah 18:7.

My goodness, did you even read the verses you cited here? All these verses do is declare the pre-eminence of Jerusalem and the temple there. Where is the forbidding of more temples? Please cite the specific words from the verse that you think support that notion. Maybe it is just my blind Mormon exegesis. Or maybe, as I strongly suspect, you are eisegeting your "only one temple" theology into verses that far from explicitly say anything close to that. Also, thank you for citing this verse, which seems to support my veiw more than yours:

And the LORD said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.

(2 Kings 23:27, my emphasis)

The Mormon Church claims that it is the only true Christian church on the face of the earth, because it alone has "restored" these lost temple practices of original Christianity.

God appointed only one temple to reflect the fact that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 12:5,13-14; 16:5,6). By contrast, the Mormon Church operates many temples, in violation of this command.

Your premise here rests upon your above two points, so I won't bother to dispute it. But I will ask this: Where, in the Deuteronomy verses you cited, does it say that "God appointed only one temple to reflect the fact that there is only one true God"

I'm searching and seacrhing for it but I just can't find it!

Only priests were allowed to enter the biblical temple. Worshippers - even the king of Israel - came no further than the altar of burnt offering in the courtyard. Since non-priests are allowed to enter and participate in Mormon temple activities, this is another point at which Mormon temple practice violates biblical commands.

I see you did not cite any scriptures in support of you position on this point. Please cite some, and we can actually discuss it. Or you can just try to lord your superior exegetical prowess over us.

All activities in the biblical temple were public knowledge. They are spelled out in detail in Scripture (for example, Exodus 30:7-10; Leviticus 4:5-7; 16:1-34; 24:1-9).

How do the particulars of how the priests offered sacrifice equate to "All activities in the biblical temple were public knowledge." ? You are making yet another assumption unwarranted by both the text, and our historical knowledge of ancient Jewish temples.

The Bible warns the Christian against participation in secret activities (Matthew 10:26-27; Ephesians 5:11-12).

Congratulations on showing that the Christ and his apostles were clearly opposed to secrecy. Now tel me, what are the mysteries of the kingdom that Christ taught his disciples in Acts 1? Can you tell me? Why isn't it made known unto the world? If it was important enough for Christ to come back and teach them for a full 40 days, it must have been important. What do you think he was teaching, a catechism that he forced the apostles to memorize?

Also, you are completely neglecting the historical evidence, particularly Clement's mention of both a secret written tradition (which he said was written by Mark), and a secret oral tradition, which he said came from Christ himself.

The scriptures you cited seem plain to understand on the surface, but when considered with the amount of secrecy that Christ, his Apostles, and the early Christians apparently performed their rites in, your interpretation falls.

Now, lest you think I forgot your out of context quotation of John:

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

In case you were blind and skipped over that part when you took the verse out of context, it says He taught openly in the synagogues and the temple. That should at least make you stop and think for a moment.

The Bible sets strict lineage requirements for the Aaronic priesthood. It teaches very explicitly that only men from the tribe of Levi and the family line of Aaron were qualified to serve as priests in the temple sanctuary (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7). The Mormon Church claims to have a restored Aaronic priesthood, but completely ignores this plain lineage requirements of Scripture.

And here you have misunderstood Mormon doctrine on the matter. Read up the oath and covenant of the priesthood and try again.

I am getting tired of your repeated eisegesis and unwarranted conclusions from the scriptures. I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your tedious claims of exegetical superiority. If you wish to address my counterclaims, please do so.