Was There An Israelite Temple In Bethlehem?

[Billy]

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.

Which statement?

I assume you are talking about my post below

Mainstream scholars would say that there was only one recognized Tabernacle or Temple on the earth at one time,

You reply

Mainstream scholars won't say that. Some fundamental religious scholars will say that, but not all of them.

So I proceed to give you a mainstream scholar, you agree that he is a mainstream scholar, but that his opinion does not count. And state that, "I'm much more of an expert in Israelite temples than he is." You do admit that some fundamental religious scholars would agree with my statement, but for some reason fundamental scholars don't count. You guys complain when others say the same thing about BYU scholars particularly with regards to Central American Archeology, but if other religious scholars say something you are quick to disregard it.

Email 1 (Bart D. Ehrman)

1. You mention in your book on page 18 in Misquoting Jesus that the Jews only had one temple for worship, was this true throughout the history of the Jews? I was discussing this point on a BB and they said that this was not always the case. They mentioned that there was a functioning temple at Leontopolis and that there were recognized temples in pre-Josiah Judaism. Is this true or not?

Bart replies,

"Yes, it's true there was a temple at Leontopolis. I was summarizing what the majority of Jews in antiquity thought -- there are always fringe groups, in every religion!"

Email 2 (The Temple Institute--Jerusalem)

I apologize for not replying sooner to your email. No, there has never been more than one recognized Temple or Tabernacle at one time. Most famously, after the northern tribes broke away from Solomon's son Rehoboam. the new king of Israel, Jeroboam, built a Temple in Beit El where idolatry was practiced. Needless to say, this temple was not recognized.

In my post #40 that you quoted in your post number 41, I stated that I would retract the term mainstream for fundamental. Don't you remember quoting this? Maybe you can go back and re read it.

You don't seem to disagree with me over the fact that there is a controversy, but object to me using the term "mainstream" rather than the term "fundamental religious scholar". I have no problem retracting the term "mainstream" if you prefer and replacing it with "fundamental religious scholar", but this does not get rid of the controversy.

[Billy]

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.

". . .Bart Ehrman is not an expert in the field. . .I'm much more of an expert in Israelite temples than he is. . ."

Because you are an expert can you answer the following questions for me?

Other than the altar, what similarities did the Israelite temples (pre Moses) have in common with

1. The Tabernacle or Solomon's temple

2. Modern day LDS Temples

Billy states,

Bethel Hebrew for H1008 = "house of God"

maklelan replies,

I can only assume you're using Strong's reference numbers. . . Strong's is for people who don't know Greek or Hebrew

So are you saying that Bethel does not mean House of God?

[Bill Hamblin]

Billy, you are a true master of the fallacies of obfuscation and distraction.

The evidence is crystal clear. During most of the history of Israel there were multiple Israelite temples or temple traditions. At the time of Jesus, for example, there were, at a minimum:

1- The temple at Jerusalem

2- The Samaritan temple near Shechem

3- The temple at Leontopolis in Egypt

4- The Qumran community which apparently accepted none of these, but seemed to have believed they worshipped at the celestial Temple (see Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from the DSS).

There were also different sects, movements and schools of thought within these groups, and probably other groups, movements and interpretations we don't know about due to loss of data.

Now these groups may have disagreed with each other, and disputed each other's authority, but there were clearly three functioning Israelite temples during the life of Jesus.

Nothing you have said has in any way engaged the evidence. You equivocate, you quibble, you distract, you obfuscate, but, you never engage the evidence.

The entire discussion is a preposterous waste of time, and I'm done.

[Billy]

Billy, you are a true master of the fallacies of obfuscation and distraction.

The evidence is crystal clear. During most of the history of Israel there were multiple Israelite temples or temple traditions.

I have agreed with you on this exact point three separate times, posts 56, 67, 69. But I never got a definition (which I asked in post 52) stating what you consider to be the minimal criteria for them to be called temples, hence the ongoing dialogue.

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.

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.

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.

[maklelan]

Because you are an expert can you answer the following questions for me?

I notice you quote my question but refuse to answer it. Bravo.

Other than the altar, what similarities did the Israelite temples (pre Moses) have in common with

1. The Tabernacle or Solomon's temple

2. Modern day LDS Temples

All are sacred and set apart space wherein humanity can come face to face with deity. Hugh Nibley calls them the navels of the universe. It's always been where the veil between the natural and the supernatural becomes thin enough to see through. They are also sanctioned space for specific ordinances.

So are you saying that Bethel does not mean House of God?

Another utterly ridiculous response. My comment was in direct response to your mind-boggling use of Strong's to substantiate some kooky assertion about the word naos. I never said a word about what bethel means. I also never said Strong's was wrong, I just said it's only used by people who don't know those languages and who always misapply every tidbit of information found within it. Strong's is good as one thing and one thing only: a concordance (and electronic concordances have rendered it utterly obsolete). If you want a lexicon use something that actually explains the nuances instead of just yacking up the KJV translation. I'll say this about Strong's: by the simple act of citing Strong's one betrays their complete and utter lack of knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. It means any discussion of the language will be utterly lost on the individual, and their conclusions are based exclusively and entirely on dogma, and in no way on any actual etymological or philological considerations. It is a gargantuan red flag of ignorance.

I've asked you repeatedly to engage my argument, and you refuse; I provided you with a representative sample of of what mainstream scholarship has to say about the issue, and you utterly ignored it; I asked you point blank if you recognize that your initial assertion was incorrect and you look the other way. I've never wasted this much time with such an absolutely useless debate. Your obfuscation defies description and your dogmatism staggers the imagination. I'm through beating my head against your total lack of decency.

[Log]

Oh crap, guys - Billy's entire argument is that Israel's ancient temples weren't Mormon temples. Throw him a bone, lock the thread, and go home.

[maklelan]

I have agreed with you on this exact point three separate times, posts 56, 67, 69. But I never got a definition (which I asked in post 52) stating what you consider to be the minimal criteria for them to be called temples, hence the ongoing dialogue.

I'll answer it for you so the debate can be ended. In Greek the word naos comes from a root that means "the dwelling of a god." The word hieron is also translated as "temple" in the New Testament, and it comes from a word meaning "divine." Literally it means a place dedicated to divinity, and it is actually distinguished from naos as the space contained within the outer boundary of the temple. The naos is the actual dwelling place of God, whereas the hieron could include the courtyard and any other space that was set apart as sacred space. Based on the Greek, any place that was sacred and dedicated to the divine can be called a "temple." The Hebrew is a little more difficult, since the Old Testament uses beit-el/yahweh and heikhal to mean temple (which mean actual buildings), but also refers to temples as bamot (high places) when they refer to buildings and other altar-associated locales. In addition, mountaintops were considered temples in the Old Testament, which is why they were referred to as "high places" (a temple was a representation of the primeval hillock where man could ascend closer to heaven). For Israelites, a temple was also where sacrifices were allowed to be performed (See Deuteronomy 12:11), and we know from historical texts, from the Bible, and from archaeology, that legitimate sacrifices were performed by legitimate Israelite ecclesiastical authorities in numerous locations. Either Deuteronomy is Josiah's propaganda, written specifically to centralize authority in Jerusalem, or most of the Old Testament prophets, including Samuel and many others, were in violation of God's explicit instructions about sacrifices. In the end, "temple" can mean many things, and many different things in the Old Testament and elsewhere qualify as temples. Ultimately, your assertion has been utterly eradicated. Not only has mainstream scholarship been unequivocally shown to be on our side, but definitive evidence has been given you that shows Israelites worshipped at various dedicated and sanctioned temples. I consider this matter closed unless you can provide some documentation that my research is incorrect. I will respond to nothing that does not contain full citations of scholarly sources, and I ask that everyone else refrain from responding unless that requirement is met. Otherwise you just encourage him.