Was There An Israelite Temple In Bethlehem?

[Bill Hamblin]

Exodus chapter 25-27 gives very specific details on what is included in the tabernacle

The Ark

The Table

The Lampstand

The Courtyard

Very specific dimensions

"Make the tabernacle with ten curtains of finely twisted linen and blue, purple and scarlet yarn, with cherubim worked into them by a skilled craftsman. 2 All the curtains are to be the same sizeâ??twenty-eight cubits long and four cubits wide. [a] 3 Join five of the curtains together, and do the same with the other five. 4 Make loops of blue material along the edge of the end curtain in one set, and do the same with the end curtain in the other set. 5 Make fifty loops on one curtain and fifty loops on the end curtain of the other set, with the loops opposite each other. 6 Then make fifty gold clasps and use them to fasten the curtains together so that the tabernacle is a unit. . .(on and on about requirements)"

If you impose these prerequisites then, of course, no temple after Solomon's meets the criteria, since the Ark was gone. Furthermore, Solomon's Temple was twice the size of the Tabernacle, and had 10 lamp stands instead of just one (2 Chr 4:7). Was it, therefore, not a temple? Simply because the Tabernacle had to be of a certain size with certain furniture does not mean every temple had to have exactly the same characteristics. You cannot make this argument without disqualifying all Israelite temples other than the Tabernacle, since all had differences.

[Billy]

If you impose these prerequisites then, of course, no temple after Solomon's meets the criteria, since the Ark was gone. Furthermore, Solomon's Temple was twice the size of the Tabernacle, and had 10 lamp stands instead of just one (2 Chr 4:7). Was it, therefore, not a temple? Simply because the Tabernacle had to be of a certain size with certain furniture does not mean every temple had to have exactly the same characteristics. You cannot make this argument without disqualifying all Israelite temples other than the Tabernacle, since all had differences.

Do you consider Gen 4:4 "But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering (specific location of the offering). . ." and the altar that Abram set up in Gen 12:8 (below) temples?

Gen 12:8 From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD. 9 Then Abram set out and continued toward the Negev.

When you say Israelite temples, what do you consider to be the minimal criteria for them to be called temples?

[LeSellers]

There are some who claim (or seem to, at the very least) that the Temple of Solomon was, essentially, a Xerox

[Bill Hamblin]

Joshua 8 appears to be in response to the command by Moses in Deut 27, which is speaking about an altar, but again no mention about the tabernacle or the articles that are present in the tabernacle.

Addendum

It also does not specify any restrictions on who can give an offering in the above examples, which in the temple/tabernacle is restricted to the priestly line from the tribe of Levi.

Nobody is claiming the Tabernacle was there. The point is, the Tabernacle was not there, yet they still offered sacrifices.

Samuel condemns Saul when he offers sacrifice at Gilgal (1 Sam 13:12-15); clearly not just anyone could offer sacrifice. Burnt offerings were made at Gilgal (1 Sam 10:8x), which Lev 1 says should be done at the Tabernacle by the priests.

But let's grant you that there may be ambiguity about an altar vs. a temple--that is it might be possible to have an altar without a temple. This still does not engage the Shechem and Shiloh, or the many other examples from Grandpa Enoch's post.

[Bill Hamblin]

Do you consider Gen 4:4 "But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering (specific location of the offering). . ." and the altar that Abram set up in Gen 12:8 (below) temples?

Gen 12:8 From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD. 9 Then Abram set out and continued toward the Negev.

When you say Israelite temples, what do you consider to be the minimal criteria for them to be called temples?

Certainly the Israelites had a different concept of what a temple was than you do. When Jacob has his vision at Bethel in Gen 28, he raises a pillar, and specifically says, "this is the 'house of God' [beth el]" (28:17, 22). It really doesn't matter what I or you think should be a temple--it matters what the Israelites conceived of as a temple, and apparently an altar and raised stone could qualify, just like Gilgal.

Note, too, that Deut 12 is the chapter most associated with the centralization of the cult at the Jerusalem Temple. Leaving aside the problem of date (and many, if not most scholars view Deut as at least associated with the book discovered in the Temple in the days of Josiah (2 Kgs 22)), Deut clearly states that burnt offerings should be done only at "the place that the Lord will choose as a dwelling for his Name" [= Jerusalem]. 12:13-14 says explicitly, "take care that you do not offer your burnt offerings at any place you happen to see. But only at the place that the Lord will choose in one of your tribes--there you shall offer your burnt offerings." (See also 12:26-27)

Thus Lev 1 and Deut 12 both instruct that burnt offerings should only be done at the Tabernacle or Temple. Yet 1 Sam 10:8x says Samuel authorized burnt offerings at Gilgal. This raises a number of issues, but one thing seems clear. Samuel viewed Gilgal as a legitimate place for offering burnt offerings, and thus was viewed as a tabernacle/temple.

But, let's stop quibbling, shall we. I'll grant, for the sake of argument that Grandpa Encoh's examples of Gilgal and Ebal could be ambiguous. However, Shechem and Shiloh are not ambiguous in the least. Why don't you deal with those?

[Billy]

Certainly the Israelites had a different concept of what a temple was than you do.

If you are including an altar where sacrifices took place a temple, then I agree there were many temples. If you restrict the definition to what Moses received, then there does not seem to be many temples. I think that it depends on how you define temple.

Hebrews 8:5 "They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Deut clearly states that burnt offerings should be done only at "the place that the Lord will choose as a dwelling for his Name" [= Jerusalem]. 12:13-14 says explicitly, "take care that you do not offer your burnt offerings at any place you happen to see. But only at the place that the Lord will choose in one of your tribes--there you shall offer your burnt offerings." (See also 12:26-27)

This seems to indicate specifically the tabernacle/temple, and it also mentions one of the tribes, namely the tribe of Levi. I don't see that this command was given to Abel, Abram, Isaac, Jacob and to say that the command applies retroactively is not supported that I can see.

[Bill Hamblin]

If you are including an altar where sacrifices took place a temple, then I agree there were many temples. If you restrict the definition to what Moses received, then there does not seem to be many temples. I think that it depends on how you define temple.

Hebrews 8:5 "They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

This seems to indicate specifically the tabernacle/temple, and it also mentions one of the tribes, namely the tribe of Levi. I don't see that this command was given to Abel, Abram, Isaac, Jacob and to say that the command applies retroactively is not supported that I can see.

It doesn't matter how I define temple. It matters how the Israelites defined it. As I demonstrated, Jacob calls his high place shrine a temple = beth El, the "house of God."

If you'll stop obfuscating, you'll remember that Grandpa Enoch doesn't mention any Patriarchal shrines as temples. So you're objection here is irrelevant. Please deal with the evidence and issue at hand = the existence of multiple contemporary Israelite temples.

Finally, I agree: a building can't be the Tabernacle if its not the Tabernacle. So? This does not mean all temples have to be the Tabernacle. If so, then there was no Israelite temple except the Tabernacle. Please stop obfuscating.

[Ron Beron]

I am not familiar with the Zadokim exception.

Do you know what tribe that they were from? Did they officiate as priests? Do you have a Biblical reference or is this from a extra Biblical source?

Add on

Google search

http://imagine-that.itdontaddup.com/Others...n%20Essenes.htm

"Although the Ossaeans and the Beni-Zadokim may have been vegetarians like the Nazorean sect, it appears that they originally did so only as a temporary measure due to their inability to sacrifice animals in the Jerusalem Temple, or for other reasons. Their ultimate goal of the Beni-Zadokim was to recapture the Temple and slaughter animals after their own peculiar fashion prescribed in their Temple Scroll."

Is this the group that you are talking about?

Part of it...In the time of Jesus there was such an order of Melchizedek called the Zadokhim or "Righteous Ones". Robert Eisenman, author of "James, Brother of Jesus", wrote of the connection between Jesus and the Zadokhim.

Jesus is referred to in Acts as the suffering Zaddik which finds some similarity in Isaiah 53. According to Eisenman the concept of Zaddik "is not only to the concept of 'Righteousness' as being the primary basis of legitimacy in the succession, but also to the personality of the righteous priest/king Jesus, in whose name the new order is established."

Of equal importance is the fact that the Zadokite priesthood is hereditary passing down from Jesus to James who officiated within the church with said authority. Also memorable is the fact that James could officiate within the temple, wearing the breastplate and even entering the holy of holies.

You might want to consider this as well...

Scholars do not know if the temples at Elephantine and Arad were

staffed by descendants of Aaron, but recent research indicates that

there were important temple officials who were not descendants of

Aaron. Margaret Barker, a biblical scholar, notes that an important

distinction between the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods was in the

nature of its transmission. The Melchizedek Priesthood had no priestly

descent (Hebrews 7), while the Aaronic Priesthood was characterized by

lineal descent. Barker argues that early evidence suggests a

Melchizedek Priesthood presence in the temple prior to the Aaronic

presence. She notes that the Yeb texts, which describe a community

who worshipped the Lord in southern Egypt in the fifth century BCE,

often mention priests, but never mention the familiar biblical names of

Aaron or Levi. The surface picture of the Aaronite high

priesthood in the Old Testament, therefore, must be treated with

caution. Barker's citation of the Yeb texts places a possible

reference to non-Aaronic priests in the temple closer to the time of

Nephi. Contrary to the assumptions advanced by the narrator, the

evidence suggests Nephite temple worship contained no surprises. In

fact, it represents an older form of Israelite worship

[Billy]

It doesn't matter how I define temple. It matters how the Israelites defined it. As I demonstrated, Jacob calls his high place shrine a temple = beth El, the "house of God."

If you'll stop obfuscating, you'll remember that Grandpa Enoch doesn't mention any Patriarchal shrines as temples. So you're objection here is irrelevant. Please deal with the evidence and issue at hand = the existence of multiple contemporary Israelite temples.

Genesis 28

16 When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he thought, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was not aware of it."

17 He was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven."

18 Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it.

19 He called that place Bethel, [f] though the city used to be called Luz.

If this is what you are calling a Temple, then I would have to agree with you that there is more than one.

[Bill Hamblin]

It should be noted that Zadok [ṣād

[Billy]

I'm not calling it a temple. Jacob is. That's your problem, not mine. At any rate, you're are obfuscating again.

Tabernacle=Jacob's rock=human body

1 Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

So you would agree that these three are all equivalent?

[Billy]

I'm not calling it a temple. Jacob is. That's your problem, not mine.

Do you trust everything Jacob says?

In Gen 27, the chapter prior to him setting up a rock we have the following verses.

18 He (Jacob) went to his father and said, "My father."

"Yes, my son," he answered. "Who is it?"

19 Jacob said to his father, "I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me. Please sit up and eat some of my game so that you may give me your blessing."

20 Isaac asked his son, "How did you find it so quickly, my son?"

"The LORD your God gave me success," he replied.

21 Then Isaac said to Jacob, "Come near so I can touch you, my son, to know whether you really are my son Esau or not."

24 "Are you (Jacob) really my son Esau?" he asked.

"I am," he (Jacob) replied.

Add on

Genesis 28 (Jacob calls it a house of God)

17And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

18And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

19And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.

Genesis 31 (angel of God does not state that it is a house of God)

11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.

13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.

[Bill Hamblin]

Do you trust everything Jacob says?

In Gen 27, the chapter prior to him setting up a rock we have the following verses.

18 He (Jacob) went to his father and said, "My father."

"Yes, my son," he answered. "Who is it?"

19 Jacob said to his father, "I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me. Please sit up and eat some of my game so that you may give me your blessing."

20 Isaac asked his son, "How did you find it so quickly, my son?"

"The LORD your God gave me success," he replied.

21 Then Isaac said to Jacob, "Come near so I can touch you, my son, to know whether you really are my son Esau or not."

24 "Are you (Jacob) really my son Esau?" he asked.

"I am," he (Jacob) replied.

Add on

Genesis 28 (Jacob calls it a house of God)

17And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

18And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

19And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.

Genesis 31 (angel of God does not state that it is a house of God)

11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.

13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.

Now you are simply descending into the absurd. Quoting a list of scriptures is not an argument, and I have no idea what your point supposed is here, but it is more obfuscation. Either deal with the evidence Grandpa Enoch presented, or I'm done.

PS Do you know what "Bethel" means in Hebrew?

[Bill Hamblin]

Tabernacle=Jacob's rock=human body

1 Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

So you would agree that these three are all equivalent?

More obfuscation. What does this have to do with the question of whether Israelites had multiple temples, or whether Jacob called his maṣṣeba the "house of God"?

[LeSellers]

Do you trust everything Jacob says?

In its complete context, yes.

Don't forget that Rebekah had received a prophecy herself on this very matter:

22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

In order for Jacob to receive the birthright, he needed to overcome Isaac's love of Esau, and this deception was, like that of Abraham with pharaoh and Abimelek and even Isaac's of Abimelek, a necessity to fulfill a prophecy. Th Bible tells us that God will have His servant deceive to make His word come to pass. At least twice, Moses hears God tell him to have the Israelites "borrow" jewelry and money and a lot more when they go out to Sinai. Yet both Moses and God know they will never return the "borrowed" stuff. He tells Moses to tell pharaoh that the Israelites only wanted to go out for three days to worship and to sacrifice, when He had told him that He would free the Israelites entirely, that the slaves would never return.

In Gen 27, the chapter prior to him setting up a rock we have the following verses.

18 He (Jacob) went to his father and said, "My father."

"Yes, my son," he answered. "Who is it?"

19 Jacob said to his father, "I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me. Please sit up and eat some of my game so that you may give me your blessing."

20 Isaac asked his son, "How did you find it so quickly, my son?"

"The LORD your God gave me success," he replied.

21 Then Isaac said to Jacob, "Come near so I can touch you, my son, to know whether you really are my son Esau or not."

24 "Are you (Jacob) really my son Esau?" he asked.

"I am," he (Jacob) replied.

And let's not forget that it was not Isaac's idea in the first place:

5 And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it. 6 And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying, 7 Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the LORD before my death.

8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee. 9 Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth: 10 And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death.

11 And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man: 12 My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.

13 And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them.

Rebekah knew, because of the vision she had had, that Jacob (whose name means "supplanter" as Esau reminds us a few verses later on) would be the birthright child. Isaac, blindered by the culture of primogeniture, wrongly loved the rebellious Esau and would erroneously give his favored son the blessing (which Esau had despised anyway, i.e., he had sold it) which rightfully, by divine decree, belonged to Jacob.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Tabernacle=Jacob's rock=human body

1 Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

So you would agree that these three are all equivalent?

No.

There is a metaphorical equivalence between "temple" and "some human bodies", but only those that have been cleaned, by baptism, from sin. That is whom Paul was writing to, not the entire world.

In your false equation, the human body is a rock. I'm not quite ready to accept that.

Moreover, since the word "Beth-El" means "house of God", and since Jacob named it after seeing God Himself at the top of the staircase, we have a good indicator that there was something special about the place. Then the very scripture you cite has God telling us (in His inerrant word, mind you) that God calls Himself "the God of Bethel", then He specifies that "Bethel" is the place where Jacob anointed the rock, confirming that it was, indeed, "Bethel", His house.

The more you argue, the better our case becomes. Please continue.

Lehi

[Billy]

PS Do you know what "Bethel" means in Hebrew?

Bethel Hebrew for H1008 = "house of God"

PS Do you know what Temple means in Greek? (Greek for G3485)

More obfuscation. What does this have to do with the question of whether Israelites had multiple temples, or whether Jacob called his maṣṣeba the "house of God"?

Because I am trying to get from you what the minimal criteria that you are using to call a site a Temple. In Genesis 28 Jacob places a rock down and calls the site the House of God, or a place where Gods dwells. My example "Tabernacle=Jacob's rock=human body" was to show that in addition to Jacob's rock, the Tabernacle, and the Human Body (Temple, Greek for G3485) also qualify to be called the Temple or House of God. But these three are not the same. This seems to boil down to definition differences. If you are using criteria that are different that what was recorded by Moses in Exodus, then I have to agree with you that these rocks are called aTemple by your definition. But I think that definition can be misleading, especially to the mainstream LDS or EV population. If President Monson went to the park just NE of the Provo Temple and placed a rock on the grass and dedicated it as a LDS Temple, you would have to agree that this is now a LDS Temple. But the two sites other than name have nothing in common with each other. The same applies with the Biblical Temple, when you say Temple or Tabernacle then people assume that you are talking about the Tabernacle or the latter Temple that resembles that as described in Exodus 25-26.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Because I am trying to get from you what the minimal criteria that you are using to call a site a Temple. In Genesis 28 Jacob places a rock down and calls the site the House of God, or a place where Gods dwells. My example "Tabernacle=Jacob's rock=human body" was to show that in addition to Jacob's rock, the Tabernacle, and the Human Body (Temple, Greek for G3485) also qualify to be called the Temple or House of God. But these three are not the same. This seems to boil down to definition differences. If you are using criteria that are different that what was recorded by Moses in Exodus, then I have to agree with you that these rocks are called aTemple by your definition. But I think that definition can be misleading, especially to the mainstream LDS or EV population. If President Monson went to the park just NE of the Provo Temple and placed a rock on the grass and dedicated it as a LDS Temple, you would have to agree that this is now a LDS Temple. But the two sites other than name have nothing in common with each other. The same applies with the Biblical Temple, when you say Temple or Tabernacle then people assume that you are talking about the Tabernacle or the latter Temple that resembles that as described in Exodus 25-26.

Criteria for a temple (Anciently and in LDS thought):

Must have:

1. Sacred Space, usually where deity can show itself

2. Altar

3. Rituals, usually with some sort of dramatized or read motiff (generally creation related)

May have, but does not need:

1. Walls, ceiling, and other architectual elements

2. Ornamentation symbolic in nature

In order to be considered Legitimate by its own culture:

1. Must be officially recognized by the organization to whom the temple is accredited (in this case the Israelites)

2. Must have some sort of recognized priestly/godly authority to administer ordinances and re-enact ritual

Since I am at work and cannot document the cases where all of these happen, I simply refer back to the Hebrew Bible, which itself has several instances of Prophets and Kings worshipping, sacrificing, and performing ritual oaths at temples other than Solomon's or the Tabernacle, with reference to them believing they were performing these before the face of the Lord.

There is indeed a reason why even the Jews do not just call the Solomon's Temple "THE Temple". Nor do they call the Temple of Herod "THE Temple". It is because both the Solomonic and the Herodian temple were different. Not just in name, but structurally. In fact, the Hebrew Bible does not have any guidance on any of the many many changes that entered into the Herodian Temple. Despite this, both temples were recognized as legitimate. Two very different structures, both which shared these in common:

1. Sacred Space, usually where deity can show itself

2. Altar

3. Rituals, usually with some sort of dramatized or read motiff (generally creation related)

.......

In order to be considered Legitimate by its own culture:

1. Must be officially recognized by the organization to whom the temple is accredited (in this case the Israelites)

2. Must have some sort of recognized priestly/godly authority to administer ordinances and re-enact ritual

So it seems then that both of these two temples were legitimate. Even if you disagree from a modern Evangelical viewpoint about whether one or the other was truely sanctioned by God, it does not change the historical reality that the Jews did not have the same hang-ups. In like manner, it was not until the reforms of Josiah that many of the officially recognized Israelite temples in other places were torn down. Even after that, some officially recognized Israelite temples were built outside of Jerusalem. At these Temples, pious jews would worship God and perform sacrifices, another indication that the people believed them to be legitimate. In all references to both these temples and their patrons, there is never once a reference to either of them being on the fringe or illigitimate in the eyes of any other Jewish or Isrealite community.

Billy, your original Statement was this:

Mainstream scholars would say that there was only one recognized Tabernacle or Temple on the earth at one time, and the only Temple was on the Temple Mount. Although I know that this is a source of contention, particularly on this board

I think it is evident that, at least in Israelite and Jewish eyes in antiquity, this is not accurate. Not a big deal, because I certainly did not know of other temples officially recognized by the Israelites until a few years ago. It's just not something that's important to your salvation or mine and thus it's not a big Sunday-Church topic, more of a "gee-whiz, that's interesting" kind of thing that nerds in our field find interesting to learn about. Doesn't make either of us less intelligent for not knowing of them, though possibly nerdier for caring about and researching them.

In the course of this thread you have adjusted to saying there was no Temple like the Solominic one found in the scriptures. To this, as I did at the beginning of the thread, I fully agree and doubt you will find any dispute among scholars. It was unique in many ways and seemed to be the official temple of Jerusalem and the Great temple of the people, the center of cultural religious power where the priests in charge of everything administered.

Hope this helps bring us into a closer unity of thought,

Matt

P.S. Billy, so you are aware, Bill Hamblin is the co-Author (with David Seely) of the highly acclaimed book "Solomon's Temple: Myth and History". You can find this book in the reportoire of almsot every online Christian Bookstore. Ministers of various faiths have read it and found it insightful. Very well reviewed everywhere I've seen. He has probably read more on the Israelite temples than everyone else on this board combined.

[Billy]

Criteria for a temple (Anciently and in LDS thought):

Must have:

1. Sacred Space, usually where deity can show itself

2. Altar

3. Rituals, usually with some sort of dramatized or read motiff (generally creation related)

May have, but does not need:

1. Walls, ceiling, and other architectual elements

2. Ornamentation symbolic in nature

Thanks for your post and your definition on the LDS/Ancient criteria for the ancient Israelite temples, I had asked several times and had not gotten a response. As I have said twice before in previous posts on this thread, if this is the definition of a ancient Israelite temple then I would have to agree that there are many ancient temples.

As you know I was raised LDS and believed that the church was a restoration of the original church including ordinances etc. This would entail a restoring to the original practices and ordinances of the early church, if this were not the case then I don't think that you can call it a "restoration", but rather just a new church. Just like the practices of today's church are fairly static including the Temple ceremony, I probably incorrectly assumed that the LDS members here envisioned ancient Temples in Israel that roughly corresponded to the temple today minus the animal sacrifices of course. This would include certain rites and practices and certain restrictions for entrance that would at least somewhat resemble the LDS temple today. The main problem that I see is when a LDS expert (and yes I did know the Bill is an expert, see post #35) says that yes the ancient Israelites had many temples, LDS members are likely to think that yes they had many temples that are roughly the same in construction, function etc. to each other and then make the jump to compare this to the modern day equivalent of the LDS temple, which also are roughly equivalent in construction and function.

[maklelan]

Bethel Hebrew for H1008 = "house of God"

PS Do you know what Temple means in Greek? (Greek for G3485)

Yes I do. Why?

Because I am trying to get from you what the minimal criteria that you are using to call a site a Temple. In Genesis 28 Jacob places a rock down and calls the site the House of God, or a place where Gods dwells. My example "Tabernacle=Jacob's rock=human body" was to show that in addition to Jacob's rock, the Tabernacle, and the Human Body (Temple, Greek for G3485) also qualify to be called the Temple or House of God.

I can only assume you're using Strong's reference numbers, and if you are then you're doing your argument a disservice. Strong's is for people who don't know Greek or Hebrew, and if you don't know it, Strong's isn't going to make the argument for you.

But these three are not the same. This seems to boil down to definition differences. If you are using criteria that are different that what was recorded by Moses in Exodus, then I have to agree with you that these rocks are called aTemple by your definition. But I think that definition can be misleading, especially to the mainstream LDS or EV population. If President Monson went to the park just NE of the Provo Temple and placed a rock on the grass and dedicated it as a LDS Temple, you would have to agree that this is now a LDS Temple. But the two sites other than name have nothing in common with each other. The same applies with the Biblical Temple, when you say Temple or Tabernacle then people assume that you are talking about the Tabernacle or the latter Temple that resembles that as described in Exodus 25-26.

I agree, and there were several of those that were operational throughout Israel for centuries. Mainstream scholarship does not, in any way, shape, or form, believe that there was only one approved temple.

[Helorum]

The main problem that I see is when a LDS expert . . . says that yes the ancient Israelites had many temples, LDS members are likely to think that yes they had many temples that are roughly the same in construction, function etc. to each other and then make the jump to compare this to the modern day equivalent of the LDS temple, which also are roughly equivalent in construction and function.

The correspondence between ancient Israelite temples and LDS temples is a great deal more than just "roughly equivalent in construction and function."

The "function" equivalence will become more apparent during the November 7th BYU (SANE) conference on "Temples and Ritual in Antiquity".

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zUKklLgtZCo/SMb8...-h/Schedule.jpg

[Billy]

I agree, and there were several of those that were operational throughout Israel for centuries. Mainstream scholarship does not, in any way, shape, or form, believe that there was only one approved temple.

Did any of these Israelite Temples perform ANY rituals or have ANY similarities to the modern day LDS Temples, particularly the Temples pre-Moses?

[Helorum]

Did any of these Israelite Temples perform ANY rituals or have ANY similarities to the modern day LDS Temples

You only need to do in-depth biblical studies of the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple to see not only similarities with LDS temples but exact correspondences.

Then you should read D&C 124 and see what the Lord said about the Nauvoo Temple and the relation its rites would have with the Tabernacle of Moses and the Temple of Solomon.

[LeSellers]

Did any of these Israelite Temples perform ANY rituals or have ANY similarities to the modern day LDS Temples, particularly the Temples pre-Moses?

This question becomes a slam dunk when we understand what happened in Solomon's Temple in the "upper house" (second floor for USmericans, first floor for others). See 2 Chr 3:9; Josephus, Antiquities 8:3. The inerrant Bible ought to fill us in, should it not? Ooops, nothing in there. Well, you cannot win them all.

Lehi

[maklelan]

Did any of these Israelite Temples perform ANY rituals or have ANY similarities to the modern day LDS Temples, particularly the Temples pre-Moses?

Entirely different discussion for another day. Does this attempt to change the subject mean you recognize your statement was inaccurate? Please answer yes or no.