Veil Of Temple Rent In Twain

[Jerubaal]

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.

Nah, I was just busy wasting a few minutes of my life responding to journeyman.

[rhinomelon]

So, any LDS thoughts on Hebrews?

[Magyar]

So, any LDS thoughts on Hebrews?

Just that it is my favorite epistle by Paul -- absolutely love his beautiful thoughts on coming to the throne of God and boldly taking hold of grace.

[Magyar]

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

[rhinomelon]

Just that it is my favorite epistle by Paul -- absolutely love his beautiful thoughts on coming to the throne of God and boldly taking hold of grace.

Without need of an earthly temple to boot!

As far as Hebrews relates to this thread, are there any thoughts regarding the link some have made between Hebrews 10:20 and the rending of the veil?

Just curious. I'm surprised you guys are making it this easy on me!

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

The date of both the Gospels and Hebrews are debated and uncertain. However, if the rending of the veil is a historical incident (as Evangelicals generally believe) then the author of Hebrews, whatever his date, could certainly have known of it.

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.

Actually, the tabernacle was considered a temple by early Christians. This is made clear in Rev 15:5, when â??the temple (naos) of the tent/tabernacle (skēnē) of witness in heaven was opened.â? John thus explicitly describes the celestial tabernacle as a temple, and, indeed, speaks frequently of the celestial temple. The tabernacle is simple a portable temple; the temple is a stone tabernacle. Indeed, Hebrews uses the term â??house of Godâ? (oikon tou theou) (10:21) to refer to the celestial skēnē, which is a technical OT term for the temple, and is never used to describe the earthly tabernacle. It is clear from all biblical descriptions that the structure, furnishings, and rituals of tabernacle and temple are essentially the same. The setting in Hebrews is the temple/tabernacle in heaven (Heb 9:11, 24), which was the prototype of the earthly tabernacle constructed by Moses (Ex 25:9, 40, 26:30, 27:, explicitly referenced in Heb 8:5. Hebrews speaks of a celestial tabernacle and not a temple because the heavenly prototype (Heb tabnīt; Gk paradeigma) described in Exodus is a skēnē (LXX).

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) .

LDS agree that the blood sacrifices of the Law are fulfilled in Christ and are no longer necessary (2 Ne 25:24-30; Moses 5:6-7).

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.

Precisely. Through Christ all are now allowed to pass through the veil into the presence of the Father in the Holy of Holies, which is one reason why I tend to interpret the rending of the veil as symbolic of Christ opening the way for all into the Holy of Holies. (Incidentally, that is the whole point of the grand allegory in LDS Temples.)

[freakin a man]

If the Atonement of Christ did away with temples themselves, why stop with the veil? It would seem that bringing the whole temple down would be a little more instructive and clear. We should also note that it was not God that ultimately destroyed the temple in 70 A.D but Romans as a result of the wickedness of the Jews.

[Theophilus]

If the Atonement of Christ did away with temples themselves, why stop with the veil? It would seem that bringing the whole temple down would be a little more instructive and clear. We should also note that it was not God that ultimately destroyed the temple in 70 A.D but Romans as a result of the wickedness of the Jews.

Your "it was not God that ultimately destroyed the temple" seems to be an unwarranted assumption on your part, and seems to assume that God isn't sovereign and in control over His creation.

Your statement is like saying,

"It was not God who crucified Jesus, but the Jews (Acts 2:36), even though the initial premise ("it was not God") is contradicted by passages such as Gal. 4:4-5, 1 John 4:9-10, etc.

Your statement is like saying,

"It was not God who sent the Assyrians against Israel, but the Assyrians decided to it for themselves", even though the initial clause is contradicted by Isa. 10:5, which says God used the Assyrians as "the rod of His anger".

Your statement is like saying,

"It was not God who sent Joseph into slavery into Egypt, but Joseph's brothers, because of their hatred of him", even though the initial clause is contradicted by Gen. 50:20, where Joseph points out that "God meant it for good".

The point of all this, of course, is just because humans are the direct and immediate cause of an action, doesn't mean that God isn't ultimately responsible for it as well, as Sovereign God of the universe.

Theophilus

[grego]

Hi,

Great discussion!

Did anyone ever clear up WHICH veil was rent?

rhinomelon wrote:

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.

I'm not sure what this means? It happened earlier than Saul/ Paul.

Also, something else that some might find interesting:

An instructive example of how to treat a text such as the Book of Mormon has recently been provided through the providence of manuscript preservation and recovery. In 1958, Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University was examining manuscripts in a monastery near Jerusalem when he happened upon a two-and-a-half-page text purporting to be a letter of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215) to a certain Theodore.7 The letter does not correspond to any previously known texts of Clement and there is no known Theodore who associated with the Alexandrian theologian. The paper on which the text was found is a heavy white binder's paper commonly found on books in VENICE during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the handwriting on the paper is dated variously from the late seventeenth century to the early nineteenth century.8 â?¦Although the scribe is acknowledged to be experienced, as noted by good spelling and correct use of accents (the language is Greek), the nature of the writing indicates he was in a hurry. It is therefore impossible to tell whether he is responsible for the high quality of the text or is simply copying a work of unusually good literary and grammatical attributes.9

The material in the letter was totally unexpected, especially since it speaks favorably of a Secret Gospel of Mark which was essentially sacramental or ordinance-oriented and which depicted Jesus as a mystagogue for Christians who wished to become perfect10 by being led as "hearers into the innermost sanctuary of the truth hidden by SEVEN veils."11 â?¦ After nearly 450 pages of comparing the style, language, and contents of the short text with already known ancient sources, Smith concludes that he had found a copy of an authentic letter of Clement, and "the consequences for the history of the early Christian church and for New Testament criticisms are revolutionary."13

(From â??The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Bookâ?, in Book of Mormon Authorship, p. 75-76.)

[Theophilus]

I'm not sure what this means? It happened earlier than Saul/ Paul.

There is no evidence, internal or external, to suggest that Paul wrote Hebrews.

Indeed, the style of the text is extremely different from the style of Paul's writings.

The material in the letter was totally unexpected, especially since it speaks favorably of a Secret Gospel of Mark which was essentially sacramental or ordinance-oriented and which depicted Jesus as a mystagogue for Christians who wished to become perfect10 by being led as "hearers into the innermost sanctuary of the truth hidden by SEVEN veils."11 â?¦ After nearly 450 pages of comparing the style, language, and contents of the short text with already known ancient sources, Smith concludes that he had found a copy of an authentic letter of Clement, and "the consequences for the history of the early Christian church and for New Testament criticisms are revolutionary."13

(From â??The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Bookâ?, in Book of Mormon Authorship, p. 75-76.)

Two points:

1) It would seem more important to base one's understanding of the Jewish Temple on the instructions and descriptions of it found in the Torah, than to rely on apocryphal works.

2) We must remember that the number "seven" isn't always used literally, but was frequently used to represent "perfection". Indeed, reading through the work itself, it seems obvious to me that the context of "the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils", isn't referring to the Jewish temple at all, but is instead referring to the separation between man and the perfection of fullness of truth in Christ.

Theophilus

[Bill Hamblin]

Did anyone ever clear up WHICH veil was rent?

No. Arguments can be made for either, but it is impossible to resolve. I favor the inner veil.

[Bill Hamblin]

1) It would seem more important to base one's understanding of the Jewish Temple on the instructions and descriptions of it found in the Torah, than to rely on apocryphal works.

This is, of course, considered faulty methodology by most scholars. First, the OT descriptions of the Temple and its rites are at least 600 years out of date by the time of Jesus. It is quite likely that temple rituals and interpretations of those rituals changed through time. Second, many scholars feel the OT descriptions are idealizations. Third, non-biblical sources (Josephus, Mishneh) provide far more detail about the Temple than biblical sources. Fourth, it is clear that there were different Temple theologies among Jews in the first century; different Jews interpreted the Temple and its meaning differently. The proper methodology is to contextualize biblical accounts with all othe available data.

2) We must remember that the number "seven" isn't always used literally, but was frequently used to represent "perfection". Indeed, reading through the work itself, it seems obvious to me that the context of "the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils", isn't referring to the Jewish temple at all, but is instead referring to the separation between man and the perfection of fullness of truth in Christ.

This interpretation is not at all obvious--indeed, it seems rather Protestant and foreign to the world-views of first century Jews or third century Christians. It seems obvious to me that the seven veils are found in the celestial temple, one for each of the seven hekalot ("temples") of the Merkavah mystical tradition, perhaps allegorically referring to veiled esoteric interpretations of scripture that cover the "hidden truth" (2 Cor 3:12-18, 4:3) (Of course, some feel that the Secret Gospel of Mark is a forgery by Smith.)

[consiglieri]

There is no evidence, internal or external, to suggest that Paul wrote Hebrews.

Indeed, the style of the text is extremely different from the style of Paul's writings.

Two points:

1) It would seem more important to base one's understanding of the Jewish Temple on the instructions and descriptions of it found in the Torah, than to rely on apocryphal works.

2) We must remember that the number "seven" isn't always used literally, but was frequently used to represent "perfection". Indeed, reading through the work itself, it seems obvious to me that the context of "the innermost sanctuary of truth hidden by seven veils", isn't referring to the Jewish temple at all, but is instead referring to the separation between man and the perfection of fullness of truth in Christ.

Theophilus

Dear Theo,

One friendly question, not to derail the thread. Why do you believe the epistle to the Hebrews to be the infallible word of God when you claim to not even know who wrote it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bill Hamblin]

There is no evidence, internal or external, to suggest that Paul wrote Hebrews.

Indeed, the style of the text is extremely different from the style of Paul's writings.

Following on Consiglieri's comment, while I agree that Pauline authorship of Hebrews is unlikely (and to me, it is irrelevant), the evidence for Pauline authorship is that most early Christians believed it was from Paul. That is the essential reason it was included in the canon of the NT. If the early Christians had rejected Pauline authorship, it probably would not have been included in the NT. This creates a rather nasty conundrum for inerrantists.

[PacMan]

Neighbor:

Allow me to correct you:

From Hebrews 8 it seems the new convenant necessitates a new priesthood.

It was because of a new priesthood that a new law was needed. That authority changed first, then the law because of it.

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

(New Testament | Hebrews 7:12)

And since you asked, I believe this is the Priesthood that was also given to the Apostles in Matthew 17 (more precisely, between 6-18).

PacMan

[freakin a man]

Your "it was not God that ultimately destroyed the temple" seems to be an unwarranted assumption on your part, and seems to assume that God isn't sovereign and in control over His creation.

Your statement is like saying,

"It was not God who crucified Jesus, but the Jews (Acts 2:36), even though the initial premise ("it was not God") is contradicted by passages such as Gal. 4:4-5, 1 John 4:9-10, etc.

Your statement is like saying,

"It was not God who sent the Assyrians against Israel, but the Assyrians decided to it for themselves", even though the initial clause is contradicted by Isa. 10:5, which says God used the Assyrians as "the rod of His anger".

Your statement is like saying,

"It was not God who sent Joseph into slavery into Egypt, but Joseph's brothers, because of their hatred of him", even though the initial clause is contradicted by Gen. 50:20, where Joseph points out that "God meant it for good".

The point of all this, of course, is just because humans are the direct and immediate cause of an action, doesn't mean that God isn't ultimately responsible for it as well, as Sovereign God of the universe.

Theophilus

I don't hold to a view that because God may be "sovereign" that it means he controls or wills every idle thing that goes on in the world. If you believe that God is ultimately responsible for a man who kills a child, or Bush's invasion of Iraq, you are free to believe such. I however believe that God has used his sovereign power to grant man agency to chose for himself what individuals and a group of individuals will do. God might be in control in that certain things will occur but he does not micromanage everything. If I where to adopt your premise, then the "buck stops" not with Bin Ladin for 911 but God himself. Therefore we should blame God for 911 and not Bin Ladin since the soverign God is ultimately responsible. Does a man blame a chess piece for its position on the board or should the blame be placed on the force that put that chess piece at that position? In this case God.

[freakin a man]

Just that it is my favorite epistle by Paul -- absolutely love his beautiful thoughts on coming to the throne of God and boldly taking hold of grace.

Is Paul the author of Hebrews?

[Baurak Ale]

Hermetically Sealed

[Baurak Ale]

Hermetically Sealed

[alpha]

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....

You are exactly RIGHT!

Alpha

[alpha]

Dear Theo,

One friendly question, not to derail the thread. Why do you believe the epistle to the Hebrews to be the infallible word of God when you claim to not even know who wrote it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi Consi,

Would it really matter who wrote it?

Alpha

[alpha]

Your "it was not God that ultimately destroyed the temple" seems to be an unwarranted assumption on your part, and seems to assume that God isn't sovereign and in control over His creation.

Your statement is like saying,

"It was not God who crucified Jesus, but the Jews (Acts 2:36), even though the initial premise ("it was not God") is contradicted by passages such as Gal. 4:4-5, 1 John 4:9-10, etc.

Your statement is like saying,

"It was not God who sent the Assyrians against Israel, but the Assyrians decided to it for themselves", even though the initial clause is contradicted by Isa. 10:5, which says God used the Assyrians as "the rod of His anger".

Your statement is like saying,

"It was not God who sent Joseph into slavery into Egypt, but Joseph's brothers, because of their hatred of him", even though the initial clause is contradicted by Gen. 50:20, where Joseph points out that "God meant it for good".

The point of all this, of course, is just because humans are the direct and immediate cause of an action, doesn't mean that God isn't ultimately responsible for it as well, as Sovereign God of the universe.

Theophilus

Here is something I found. This may be a bit repetitive, or very different, but here goes...

The veil, made of finely twined, separated the Most Holy Place from the sanctuary. (See Exodus 26:31-33.) Cherubim were embroidered upon it in colors of blue, purple, and scarlet. This hanging was not only gorgeous, but was also amazingly strong. Two teams of oxen, pulling in opposite directions, could not tear it apart.

The veil points directly to the humanity of the Lord Jesus . "Having therefore, bretheren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" (Hebrews 10:19-20). We are clearly told here that the flesh of Jesus was the real veil, of which the veil of the Holy Place was only a symbol.

Why was it a perfect type of the humanity of our Lord?

In the first place, the veil concealed the glory of God, which shone between the cherubim. Just behind it dwelt the divine presence of the Almighty God. From this fact, we gather that the veil was a silent prophesy that someday God, who is a Spirit, would appear wrapped in a veil of flesh!

The invisible God Jehovah was to come to earth in human form. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). (See 11 Corinthians 5:19; Collossians 2:9.) No human could look upon God and live, and yet, God wished to reveal himself to humanity. The only way our God, who is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29), could approach sinful humans and reconcile them to Himself, was to hide behind a veil of flesh. "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior" (Isaiah 45:15).

The Glory of God dwelling behind the veil of the Tabernacle is one of the clearest Biblical illustrations of the truth of the Incarnation. In the scene of the Transfiguration, the glory of Jehovah shone from behind the veil of the flesh of Jesus. In the darkness of night, a light shone that did not come from the moon or the stars, and yet it filled the place as the sun would have done at midday. A ray of this light, which had continually dwelt behind the veil, now proceeded out of the very flesh of Christ, making His garments "exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them" (Mark 9:3).

That the veil, representing His flesh, was made of white linen showed that His humanity was to be sinless, and yet a mere attempt to imitate this purity cannot bring salvation, for the unrent veil shut the people out of the presence of God. The rent veil, however, opened the way to the Holiest Place. The truth portrayed here contadicts the modernistic teaching of saving oneself by trying to display the same virtues Christ exhibited. Suppose that the priest should stand before the veil, admiring the spotlessness of the linen and the exquisite workmanship of the embroidery. He would have to admit that, however beautiful it was, it was a barrier between him and God's presence. Likewise, humans may admire the virtues of the humanity of Christ, but they will have to admit that they fall short of His perection (Romans 3:23). Try as he might, the unregenerated person is as different from Christ as darkness is from light. The only way the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place, even on the Day of Atonement, was with the blood from the alter of sacrifice. Likewise the blood allows us to enter into God's presence today.

The Rending of the Veil:

Our approach to the shekinah is made possible because this veil of His flesh was rent, as was the veil of the Temple. The flesh of Jesus was rent when He dies on the cross of Calvary. Since the veil was so strong that the oxen could not tear it apart, and since the rending was from the top to the bottom, God Himself had to have rent it.

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" (Matthew 27:50). How plain this type is made when we see that at the same moment that jesus died an unseen hand rent the veil of the Temple.

Let us picture the events of that hour. It was 3:00 in the afternoon, the hour of the evening sacrifice. (Matthew 27:46) The priest was sacrificing the passover lamb upon the brazen alter in the temple courtyard. At the same hour, Jesus, the true Passover Lamb , was being sacrificed upon the brazen alter of the cross of Calvary. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us" ( 1 Corinthians 5:7). At that moment Jesus cried, "It is finished," and died, the veil of the Temple was rent in two, changing the veil from a barrier to a new and living way into the presence of God. The sinlessness of the Man showed how unfit humanity was for heaven, while the sacrifice of this Man made a way for humanity to enjoy the presence of God.

If Jesus had merely came to earth, lived a beautiful life beyond reproach, and then went back to heaven without dying on the cross, He would never have any "sons of God" to share heaven with Him- this grain of corn wheat would have had to dwell alone. But because the grain fell into the ground and died (John 12:24), it was able to bring forth much fruit, that is, Jesus was able to produce more after His own kind. We see the same truth here as in Aaron's rod that budded. Life really comes out of death. As the sripture says, "That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die" (1 Corinthians 15:36). Those who recognize the rent veil and accept Christ's sacrificial death as their only claim to eternal life are the ones who will escape death that is justly their due.

When the high priest took the blood into the Holiest of Holies on the day of the atonement, he was not allowed to sit down or to remain in that sacred room. As soon as he finished the ceremony, he had to withdraw. This shows that the sacrifice was not complete and could not perfect anyone. But when Jesus, our High Priest, entered with His own blood into the real Holy Place in heaven (Hebrews 9:24), He sat down at the right hand of God, showing that the sacrifice was now complete. "This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God" (Hebrews 10:12). This offering can make those who come to Him perfect. "By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14). Since we have a high priest, whose own flesh was rent for us, we can now "draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith" (Hebrews 10:22), and we can "obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16).

So these passages assure me, that a man made temple is not needed for salvation after all. All One really needs is Jesus. Like I mentioned earlier in the post. An LDS temple and "Christian temple" are very different in purpose.

Alpha

[Baurak Ale]

Hermetically Sealed

[alpha]

Can you figure this out?

Alpha

[journeyman]

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.

Hebrews chapter 8 explains it all pretty well.

As far as the christians and apostles attending the temple, are you suggesting that they were performing temple endowments like Mormons do today?