Paul And Marriage

[Jesterss]

You also miss the point that Luke is speaking of people in the ressurection become "equal to Angels". (Joseph Smiths - Single Angels).

What of those who are placed in heaven above the angels in the world to come?

1 Cor 6

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

Deciding who is above angels and who is judging who does not make the claim for the singleness or married state of either. This discussion is not about who is to judge who. It is about the singleness of angels that is in question.

This is a red herring!

Address what I actually said in post #92 or prior.

[Jesterss]

You're avoiding the CFR again. Answer it.

Address post #92, you're skirting the issue and topic..

[altersteve]

Address post #92, you're skirting the issue and topic..

I'm not "skirting" anything. You made the claim that marriages were never performed in ancient temples. I asked you to back that up, and since it doesn't appear to me that you can, I have no choice but to assume that you have no support for your claim.

I should have known, though. Trying to have an intelligent discussion with you is a waste of everyone's time.

[LeSellers]

Please reference "King James Bible" or "NIV Bible" and when you're reading it and come across anything that discusses temples, let me know if any of it says anything about marriages. There's your reference. The fact that it doesn't exist, means there is no reference. You must reference if it does exist since you so believe that it does.

While this does not explicitly say marriages were performed in Solomon's Temple, neither does it say anything about what happened upstairs.

We know that Solomon built a second floor above the Temple, that he overlaid it with gold, and that there were two rooms (exactly the same dimensions as those below), separated by a veil. Solomon made "a fine contrivance" to access this second story: a circular staircase within the thickness of the walls. What did take place up there? It was not the same thing as what took place downstairs, since the Ark was not up there, nor does anyone make any reference to cherubim.

A veil like the one that had been in the Tabernacle between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) was not used downstairs in Solomon's Temple: we read these rooms had a door fastened with a golden chain in between them.

No one can tell us exactly what occurred in that upper floor. But it sounds suspiciously like the floor plan of an LDS Temple. I neither can nor will go into more detail, for propriety's sake, but the question remains: what did they do up there?

Lehi

[Jesterss]

I'm not "skirting" anything. You made the claim that marriages were never performed in ancient temples. I asked you to back that up, and since it doesn't appear to me that you can, I have no choice but to assume that you have no support for your claim.

I should have known, though. Trying to have an intelligent discussion with you is a waste of everyone's time.

If you read my post in entirety, I also said that my view there was not the purpose of this thread. Clearly I don't have a reference to something that doesn't exist. If there were references, I would be claiming that it does exist, instead your the one who claims that it does, so you need to provide references if its something you wish to continue to discuss. Is that so hard to comprehend?

[Jesterss]

While this does not explicitly say marriages were performed in Solomon's Temple, neither does it say anything about what happened upstairs.

But we know that both solomon was married before the building of this temple, and so was David, and Peter was not mentioned to having been married in a temple and Jewish customs do not preach of any temple marriages. Therefore, seeings as the Jews are the ones we have chosen to follow in faith, anything that happened upstairs still doesn't extrapolate into the possibility of it being marriage.

We know that Solomon built a second floor above the Temple, that he overlaid it with gold, and that there were two rooms (exactly the same dimensions as those below), separated by a veil. Solomon made "a fine contrivance" to access this second story: a circular staircase within the thickness of the walls. What did take place up there? It was not the same thing as what took place downstairs, since the Ark was not up there, nor does anyone make any reference to cherubim.

CFR? I lack the understanding that there were 2 floors. My understanding is that when you entered, the first room was the Holy Place, and then once continued on, you may have stepped up steps, but it was of the design as a split level, which was then the Most Holy Place. No circular staircase or two rooms on top of two rooms that I'm aware of. Reference this please.

A veil like the one that had been in the Tabernacle between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) was not used downstairs in Solomon's Temple: we read these rooms had a door fastened with a golden chain in between them.

The veil separated these two rooms. Which consequently, was torn down when Jesus expired on the cross.

No one can tell us exactly what occurred in that upper floor. But it sounds suspiciously like the floor plan of an LDS Temple. I neither can nor will go into more detail, for propriety's sake, but the question remains: what did they do up there?

We don't have full knowledge we just know who was allowed in there. Agreed.

[altersteve]

The fact is, Jesterss, is that every single thing you have said in this thread has been addressed. You are completely ignoring everything that we're telling you. Time and time again we give you something to look at it, but all you do, consistently, is comment on something that is totally irrelevant and continue to spout the same things you've been saying the whole thread. It's circular and extremely frustrating on our end, because you refuse to open your mind a little. It doesn't work that way. That's why nobody wants to answer you, and that's why having an intelligent conversation with you is something that none of us want to even try to do anymore.

For example, Lehi said:

A veil like the one that had been in the Tabernacle between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) was not used downstairs in Solomon's Temple: we read these rooms had a door fastened with a golden chain in between them.

And you replied:

The veil separated these two rooms. Which consequently, was torn down when Jesus expired on the cross.

...Um, Lehi already said that the two rooms were separated by the veil. What does it being torn down when Jesus "expired" have to do with anything?

Honestly, Jesterrs, please knock it off and learn how to have a real discussion. Besides, every single one of your claims have been answered time and again by scholars, both LDS and non-LDS. Your position that eternal marriage is inconsistent with the Bible has been refuted many times over, whether you realize it or not.

I'm done talking to you.

[Jesterss]

The fact is, Jesterss, is that every single thing you have said in this thread has been addressed. You are completely ignoring everything that we're telling you. Time and time again we give you something to look at it, but all you do, consistently, is comment on something that is totally irrelevant and continue to spout the same things you've been saying the whole thread. It's circular and extremely frustrating on our end, because you refuse to open your mind a little. It doesn't work that way. That's why nobody wants to answer you, and that's why having an intelligent conversation with you is something that none of us want to even try to do anymore.

Did you address post 92? You, telling me to CFR something that I say doesn't exist, is pretty comical really.. then you want to say that I'm the one refusing to understand any answers given to me.. please.. cmon now.. if this were a baseball competition you would be claiming that homeruns shouldn't be allowed because nobody can catch them.

...Um, Lehi already said that the two rooms were separated by the veil. What does it being torn down when Jesus "expired" have to do with anything?

First, lesellers stated that on the belief that there were two floors, four rooms total http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon's_Temple Secondly, the veil being torn has the same implications on this discussion as the fact that there is a veil, both statements of factuality of the temple.

Honestly, Jesterrs, please knock it off and learn how to have a real discussion. Besides, every single one of your claims have been answered time and again by scholars, both LDS and non-LDS. Your position that eternal marriage is inconsistent with the Bible has been refuted many times over, whether you realize it or not.

I'm done talking to you.

Let me guess, now that you have quoted one snippet of my response to LeSellers in post #106, you believe that someone has posted a relevant reply to it huh. Please, if you don't know how to follow along and reply to someone without taking a word here and there then making claims that you've replied. Then thank you for not continuing, I wish you wouldn't as well. I prefer discussing this with people who actually have knowledge on the subject, not someone who thinks he has replied to my entire post by quoting one sentence.

[Zakuska]

Deciding who is above angels and who is judging who does not make the claim for the singleness or married state of either. This discussion is not about who is to judge who. It is about the singleness of angels that is in question.

This is a red herring!

Address what I actually said in post #92 or prior.

To judge do you not have to sit above someone? Thus you are not "equal to" them but "Greater than them".

So your claim that those who are made "equal to Angels" (in Luke) are not married only substanciates Joseph Smiths teaching that those who are made "equal to Angles" are not married and remain single.

It says nothing about the married state of those placed ABOVE the Angels. The Judgment spoken of by Paul in 1 Cor 6 is happening in the resssurection. So these Judges cant be equal to and judge from above the angels at the same time.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska

[LeSellers]

But we know that both solomon was married before the building of this temple, and so was David, and Peter was not mentioned to having been married in a temple and Jewish customs do not preach of any temple marriages. Therefore, seeings as the Jews are the ones we have chosen to follow in faith, anything that happened upstairs still doesn't extrapolate into the possibility of it being marriage.

As I said, we don't know what happened upstairs. What we do know (or can safely conjecture) is that something happened, and that whatever it was was of supreme religious import, since there are no records on the matter.

There were many events, not least of which was the captivity and return of the Jews, the conquest and subjugation of Judah by the Macedonians and the Romans, the destruction of the Temple, the rise of the Pharisees and Sadducees (not to mention the Essenes), and hundreds of years between Solomon and Peter. We can only speculate as to what was lost in the doctrine and practices of the vi~I Jews. There is no reason to assume and less to assert that the Jewish traditions of the I were accurate in anything they did. Apostasy does morph truth in many ways.

As to the pre-Temple Israelites, we have no reason to assume that their marriages were performed in the Tabernacle at all. Even in the modern Church, eternal marriages were officiated in the woods, on mountain tops, and in temporary buildings awaiting the construction of an authorized Temple. It was very possible that the same thing happened for anyone whose marriage was performed and sealed by the power of the Holy Priesthood in any time, from Adam to Abraham to David, to the Hammer.

You say there is no reason to assume marriages happened up there, but you cannot prove it (just as we cannot assert there were). But the silence is telling.

I lack the understanding that there were 2 floors. My understanding is that when you entered, the first room was the Holy Place, and then once continued on, you may have stepped up steps, but it was of the design as a split level, which was then the Most Holy Place. No circular staircase or two rooms on top of two rooms that I'm aware of. Reference this please.

If you lack this understanding, you need to read the Bible more carefully. The second floor is mentioned twice, but only "in passing".

“Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlors thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat. And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit.”

and he [solomon] overlaid the upper chambers with gold.

Josephus talks about the staircases (and his record is not alone). He also mentions the size and conformation of the second floor, and the veil. It’s in book VIII, chapter 3, as I recall, of Antiquities.

The veil separated these two rooms. Which consequently, was torn down when Jesus expired on the cross.

Wrong Temple.

Solomon's Temple was destroyed, and Herod's Temple that replaced it was not the same building at all. First of all, it had no second floor. And, more importantly, the Priesthood required to operate it had fallen (again) into apostasy. A few righteous men (Zechariah, John's father, being one of them) did officiate, but, by-and-large, the I Jews were sheep with no shepherd. They did not have the Melchizedek Priesthood even if the Aaronic Priesthood was operating among them, albeit firing only on two cylinders.

We don't have full knowledge we just know who was allowed in there. Agreed.

So to claim that marriages did not happen on the second floor is no less troublesome than to claim they did. For us, however, we have the God-given knowledge of the eternal nature of the marriage covenant when one holding the sealing power officiates.

Lehi

[altersteve]

To judge do you not have to sit above someone? Thus you are not "equal to" them but "Greater than them".

So your claim that those who are made "equal to Angels" (in Luke) are not married only substanciates Joseph Smiths teaching that those who are made "equal to Angles" are not married and remain single.

It says nothing about the married state of those placed ABOVE the Angels.

+1

Jesus did say that those who do not marry are worthy of resurrection (and therefore salvation) in the world to come, and He did say that they would be numbered among the angels. But He said nothing (or, at least, He is not recorded saying anything) about those who are married, who according to modern revelation will be worthy of not just salvation, but exaltation, and will be numbered among the gods.

[Zakuska]

I can see Paul now... pontificaing on Marriage.

[Jesterss]

To judge do you not have to sit above someone? Thus you are not "equal to" them but "Greater than them".

Agreed.

So your claim that those who are made "equal to Angels" (in Luke) are not married only substanciates Joseph Smiths teaching that those who are made "equal to Angles" are not married and remain single.

Agreed.

Itsays nothing about the married state of those placed ABOVE the Angels.

Agreed.

The Judgment spoken of by Paul in 1 Cor 6 is happening in the resssurection. So these Judges cant be equal to and judge from above the angels at the same time.

Yes I still agree with all of this. I don't see how this pertains to marriage?

It does not say anything about those placed above the angels in Luke because that's not what this part of Luke is about. This part in Luke is about marriage and resurrection. That we will be LIKE the angels of heaven. Concerning the fact that we will be single (not bonded to others) and that we will not die but have everlasting life. Thus reinforcing my notion that Luke discusses the issue of being single and resurrection.

I am not refuting your understanding of us being placed above the angels and having authority over them.

What's the word I'm looking for: Red Herring?

[Zakuska]

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Yes I still agree with all of this. I don't see how this pertains to marriage?

It does not say anything about those placed above the angels in Luke because that's not what this part of Luke is about. This part in Luke is about marriage and resurrection. That we will be LIKE the angels of heaven. Concerning the fact that we will be single (not bonded to others) and that we will not die but have everlasting life. Thus reinforcing my notion that Luke discusses the issue of being single and resurrection.

I am not refuting your understanding of us being placed above the angels and having authority over them.

What's the word I'm looking for: Red Herring?

Have you ever thought to check the Greek?

"they neither marry nor are given in marriage"

But, regardless of who the parties were in the Sadducees' question to Jesus, doesn't verse 30 — "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" — just mean that everyone is single in heaven? Absolutely not. And here's why we can say this so confidently.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the tenses of verbs in Greek can convey very different information from those in English. The Greek verb for 'marry' is gameô. In verse 30, it is written in the form gamousin, indicating that it is in third person plural (they) and in the present tense, so it is translated simply as "they marry."

Now it is important to note that the present tense represents an action, something performed at some particular time. It does not represent a condition. We can be sure of this because the Greek does have a verb tense called the 'perfect tense' that represents a present condition resulting from a past completed action. There is no English counterpart to this tense, so it is hard to translate unambiguously, but the point here is that the verbs in Matthew 22:30 are not in the perfect tense. If Matthew had wanted to report that Christ said, "Neither are they now in a married state," the Greek in which he wrote would have let him say so unambiguously. He would have simply written in the present perfect tense, oute gegamêkasin. He did not; so that cannot be what he meant. Christ said nothing about the marital state of those who are in heaven.

Please note that the use of the perfect tense is just standard Greek. Everyone used it. Matthew used it. A few chapters later, Matthew writes "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you"Matthew 25:34, in which 'blessed' is the perfect-tense Greek eulogêmenoi, literally 'those who are now in a blessed state due to a previously completed blessing,' and 'prepared' is the Greek hêtoimasmênen, meaning 'now in a prepared state due to a previously completed preparation.' We also have Paul writing to the Corinthians, saying "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord" 1 Corinthians 7:10, where the Greek word translated 'married' is gegamêkasin, meaning 'those who are now in a married state due to their previously completed marriages.' This is the same perfect-tense Greek word that Matthew could have used in Matthew 22:30 if he had wanted to state that there are no married couples in Heaven. By using the present tense, Matthew has Jesus simply saying, "In the resurrection, there are no marriages performed." And, of course, the requirement that marriage ceremonies be performed on Earth, not in heaven, is one of the main themes of LDS temple work. Our reason for seeking the names of our ancestors and then, by proxy, sealing them together as couples and families, is just what the Savior said to the Sadducees — that the ordinance itself is not done in heaven. And, since work for the dead did not begin until after the resurrection, the seven brothers the Sadducees asked about were unmarried when they died and were still unmarried in heaven.

A non-LDS reading

Ben Witherington, a non-LDS biblical scholar, understands this exchange in a similar way:

The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?...Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state.” (emphasis added)[1]

1.[note] Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001), 328. ISBN 0802845037.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska

[Jesterss]

As I said, we don't know what happened upstairs. What we do know (or can safely conjecture) is that something happened, and that whatever it was was of supreme religious import, since there are no records on the matter.

Agreed.

There were many events, not least of which was the captivity and return of the Jews, the conquest and subjugation of Judah by the Macedonians and the Romans, the destruction of the Temple, the rise of the Pharisees and Sadducees (not to mention the Essenes), and hundreds of years between Solomon and Peter. We can only speculate as to what was lost in the doctrine and practices of the vi~I Jews. There is no reason to assume and less to assert that the Jewish traditions of the I were accurate in anything they did. Apostasy does morph truth in many ways.

But you will agree that we don't know, and no Jews ever mention having practiced marriage in the temples. Correct? Apostasy created a diversion from the truth, but we know that the Jews were the children of God originally, so if no marriage is ever spoken of having taken place in the Temples, we can ascertain that temple marriages were not a practice.

As to the pre-Temple Israelites, we have no reason to assume that their marriages were performed in the Tabernacle at all. Even in the modern Church, eternal marriages were officiated in the woods, on mountain tops, and in temporary buildings awaiting the construction of an authorized Temple. It was very possible that the same thing happened for anyone whose marriage was performed and sealed by the power of the Holy Priesthood in any time, from Adam to Abraham to David, to the Hammer.

Agreed. Except with what I striked through. You made an assumption that doesn't seem accurate with what we know to be true. We know what Jews do for marriage. We know what they have done. We don't have any evidence of a temple marriage because it isn't written. That leads one to question why it wasn't written if we believe it happened. I have no explanation for that, but that's because I don't believe it happened. Are you saying you have a theory as to why the Jews/Israelites did not write down a temple marriage? http://www.theology.edu/marriage.htm

You say there is no reason to assume marriages happened up there, but you cannot prove it (just as we cannot assert there were). But the silence is telling.

Agreed. But there is no written record of it. We all believe in God and Jesus due to written records. And our customs are set accordingly to these written guidances.

If you lack this understanding, you need to read the Bible more carefully. The second floor is mentioned twice, but only "in passing".

Upper room is mentioned. As I stated, I do believe there were steps leading up to the holy of holies but not another floor, the main floor (only floor to my belief) was very tall and open.

Josephus talks about the staircases (and his record is not alone). He also mentions the size and conformation of the second floor, and the veil. It’s in book VIII, chapter 3, as I recall, of Antiquities.

Is there a mentioning of 2 identical rooms on this "Second floor" as the Main floor?

Wrong Temple.

We never really stated which one we were specifically referring too. I went with the first one.

Solomon's Temple was destroyed, and Herod's Temple that replaced it was not the same building at all. First of all, it had no second floor. And, more importantly, the Priesthood required to operate it had fallen (again) into apostasy. A few righteous men (Zechariah, John's father, being one of them) did officiate, but, by-and-large, the I Jews were sheep with no shepherd. They did not have the Melchizedek Priesthood even if the Aaronic Priesthood was operating among them, albeit firing only on two cylinders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple So did it have a second floor or not? They did indeed defile God's temple. Agreed.

So to claim that marriages did not happen on the second floor is no less troublesome than to claim they did. For us, however, we have the God-given knowledge of the eternal nature of the marriage covenant when one holding the sealing power officiates.

There are no records of such. We know the Israelites knew how to write. If there is no record of it, it is more logical to conclude that there were no temple marriages, especially since we do have knowledge of some of the things that did occur in the temples. Why would marriage be forgotten if it had such importance?

[Jesterss]

Have you ever thought to check the Greek?

1.[note] Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001), 328. ISBN 0802845037.

I can't say I know Greek or any way of translating it for myself so I would have to take someone else's word or not. I will say that it is very interesting, but as the LDS scholar pointed out it is unambiguous. The scholars themselves can only guess at what matthew really meant due to the lack of a fluid perfect tense in the greek language and the one instance of a married state being used elsewhere. So the conclusion that he meant something else is only their belief it's not complete.

Edit: I am not arguing that I think they are wrong, but they themselves cannot say with certainty that they are even right. That leaves me to question their translation and changing of the meaning.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Jesterss

[LeSellers]

But you will agree that we don't know, and no Jews ever mention having practiced marriage in the temples. Correct? Apostasy created a diversion from the truth, but we know that the Jews were the children of God originally, so if no marriage is ever spoken of having taken place in the Temples, we can ascertain that temple marriages were not a practice.

We Saints do not publish the details of our Temple ceremonies, either. We recognize that some people have desecrated the Temple by their faithless publishing of those ordinances. We also know that we broadly announce that we do have such ceremonies. However, there are a couple of things that differ between our time and theirs.

• We nearly all read and write today. It was not the case 3,500 years ago.
  
• Ours is a very open culture. The Israelites/Jews live in a very closed society.
  
• The records we have of our time are vast, and nearly everything written in the past 150 years is available for study. The records made from Moses on (and even more from times before his) are sporadic and many are missing entirely.
  

Agreed. Except with what I striked through. You made an assumption that doesn't seem accurate with what we know to be true. We know what Jews do for marriage. We know what they have done. We don't have any evidence of a temple marriage because it isn't written. That leads one to question why it wasn't written if we believe it happened. I have no explanation for that, but that's because I don't believe it happened. Are you saying you have a theory as to why the Jews/Israelites did not write down a temple marriage? http://www.theology.edu/marriage.htm

We know what they do now. We can only guess what they did 3,000 years ago. Your assumption, that we know, is unfounded if their ceremonies were considered especially sacred, as we Saints consider ours today.

That it was not written (keeping in mind that it may have been, and we do not have that record) is not a puzzle, since, as I have already told you, it would have been considered sacred.

We all believe in God and Jesus due to written records. And our customs are set accordingly to these written guidances.

I'm sorry you have to have a written record to believe in God and Christ.

Our customs, and please recall that we Saints are of the blood of Israel, so our customs are important in the same way those of the Israelites', are not set according to any written "guidances", at least not public ones.

Upper room is mentioned. As I stated, I do believe there were steps leading up to the holy of holies but not another floor, the main floor (only floor to my belief) was very tall and open.

2. Now, therefore, the king laid the foundations of the temple very deep in the ground, and the materials were strong stones, and such as would resist the force of time; these were to unite themselves with the earth, and become a basis and a sure foundation for that superstructure which was to be erected over it; they were to be so strong, in order to sustain with ease those vast superstructures and precious ornaments, whose own weight was to be not less than the weight of those other high and heavy buildings which the king designed to be very ornamental and magnificent. They erected its entire body, quite up to the roof, of white stone; its height was sixty cubits, and its length was the same, and its breadth twenty. There was another building erected over it, equal to it in its measures; so that the entire altitude of the temple was a hundred and twenty cubits. Its front was to the east. As to the porch, they built it before the temple; its length was twenty cubits, and it was so ordered that it might agree with the breadth of the house; and it had twelve cubits in latitude, and its height was raised as high as a hundred and twenty cubits. He also built round about the temple thirty small rooms, which might include the whole temple, by their closeness one to another, and by their number and outward position round it. He also made passages through them, that they might come into on through another. Every one of these rooms had five cubits in breadth, and the same in length, but in height twenty. Above these there were other rooms, and others above them, equal, both in their measures and number; so that these reached to a height equal to the lower part of the house; for the upper part had no buildings about it. The roof that was over the house was of cedar; and truly every one of these rooms had a roof of their own, that was not connected with the other rooms; but for the other parts, there was a covered roof common to them all, and built with very long beams, that passed through the rest, and through the whole building, that so the middle walls, being strengthened by the same beams of timber, might be thereby made firmer: but as for that part of the roof that was under the beams, it was made of the same materials, and was all made smooth, and had ornaments proper for roofs, and plates of gold nailed upon them. And as he enclosed the walls with boards of cedar, so he fixed on them plates of gold, which had sculptures upon them; so that the whole temple shined, and dazzled the eyes of such as entered, by the splendor of the gold that was on every side of them, Now the whole structure of the temple was made with great skill of polished stones, and those laid together so very harmoniously and smoothly, that there appeared to the spectators no sign of any hammer, or other instrument of architecture; but as if, without any use of them, the entire materials had naturally united themselves together, that the agreement of one part with another seemed rather to have been natural, than to have arisen from the force of tools upon them. The king also had a fine contrivance for an ascent to the upper room over the temple, and that was by steps in the thickness of its wall; for it had no large door on the east end, as the lower house had, but the entrances were by the sides, through very small doors. He also overlaid the temple, both within and without, with boards of cedar, that were kept close together by thick chains, so that this contrivance was in the nature of a support and a strength to the building.

Antiquities of the Jews, Book 8, Chapter 3, ¶ 2

There are no records of such. We know the Israelites knew how to write. If there is no record of it, it is more logical to conclude that there were no temple marriages, especially since we do have knowledge of some of the things that did occur in the temples. Why would marriage be forgotten if it had such importance?

We have knowledge of some things, but not all things. They, some of them, could write, but, as I have already said several times, there was a major apostasy among the Jews. Even their Priesthood was corrupt. They had lost the Melchizedek Priesthood entirely, and so were unable to perform these ordinances. The tendency to “erase” such failures would have been strong among them, and we do not know if they were ever written in any case.

Lehi

Edited September 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Upper room is mentioned. As I stated, I do believe there were steps leading up to the holy of holies but not another floor, the main floor (only floor to my belief) was very tall and open.

Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlors thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat. And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit.”

and he [solomon] overlaid the upper chambers with gold.

The word in both 1 Chr 28:11~12 and 2 Chr 3:9 is plural. It's upper "chambers", not "chamber", so there were at least two. Josephus says there were exactly two on each level and that they were each the same size as the one below it on the ground floor.

The entrance to the Holy of Holies (from the Holy Place) was marked by a door (two pieces) held closed by a golden chain, not the vail (although Josephus gets this detail wrong—the Bible is explicit). The vail Solomon had made was not used downstairs.

16 And he maketh chains in the oracle, and putteth on the heads of the pillars, and maketh a hundred pomegranates, and putteth on the chains.

19 And Solomon maketh all the vessels that [are for] the house of God, and the altar of gold, and the tables, and on them [is] bread of the presence; … 22 and the snuffers, and the bowls, and the spoons, and the censers, of gold refined, and the opening of the house, its innermost doors to the holy of holies, and the doors of the house to the temple, of gold.

Wikipedia is wrong, at least according to what the Bible and ancient historians (Josephus was not alone in mentioning this) have told us: there were two storeys in Solomon's Temple. And we can surmise that the vail was upstairs, not down.

So, what happened up there? I have heard many Evangelicals (most of whom don't even know there was a second floor) claim that we know everything that took place in Solomon's Temple. Yet, at the very least, there is half of the Temple building that is a total mystery to them. And that mystery is not solely because the upper floor is "invisible", but because, aside from its existence, there is nothing written about it, anywhere.

Lehi

[Rivers]

I've always thought that the sealing power wasn't around during the days of the Law of Moses. Or was it?

[LeSellers]

I've always thought that the sealing power wasn't around during the days of the Law of Moses. Or was it?

If that were true, why would it have been Elijah who restored the keys of sealing to Christ, in Matthew, and Joseph, in the Doctrine and Covenants?

Lehi

[Jesterss]

The word in both 1 Chr 28:11~12 and 2 Chr 3:9 is plural. It's upper "chambers", not "chamber", so there were at least two. Josephus says there were exactly two on each level and that they were each the same size as the one below it on the ground floor.

We are talking annexes and portico's. "Additions to" the actual temple. I don't disagree that there were other buildings and rooms surrounding the temple, but the temple (being of the same as the traveling tabernacle) was not two floors as in one on top of the other.

The entrance to the Holy of Holies (from the Holy Place) was marked by a door (two pieces) held closed by a golden chain, not the vail (although Josephus gets this detail wrong—the Bible is explicit). The vail Solomon had made was not used downstairs.

Yeah I think I mispoke above myself, but you're right as far as the door is concerned, the veil was around the ark of the covenant, not the doorway. Correct.

Wikipedia is wrong, at least according to what the Bible and ancient historians (Josephus was not alone in mentioning this) have told us: there were two storeys in Solomon's Temple. And we can surmise that the vail was upstairs, not down.

I'm not in full agreeance on this. I'm not sure what this other building was that sat on top of it. It's almost as if Josephus is speaking metaphorically. A building on top of a building? Clearly a roof would distinguish that it was only one building. But he distinctly says two buildings. Which makes me question how he is speaking. Josephus doubles the size of the temple, we've known it to be 54' high, he says 60' then there was another building erected over top of it to raise it to 120' total (we have the limits of a temple set at 90' by King Cyrus). Perhaps he is talking about how the court sits below the actual temple and there are buildings in this court, that steps lead up and into the actual temple? Like I say though, I have no clue as to the validity or tone that Josephus is undertaking in this discussion.

So, what happened up there? I have heard many Evangelicals (most of whom don't even know there was a second floor) claim that we know everything that took place in Solomon's Temple. Yet, at the very least, there is half of the Temple building that is a total mystery to them. And that mystery is not solely because the upper floor is "invisible", but because, aside from its existence, there is nothing written about it, anywhere.

I won't speak on behalf of any evangelicals or defend what is they may believe, but Josephus may not have just been describing the temple, he could have included everything such as the surrounding walls and buildings and annexes and portico's and understood the combined structures as the temple. He was a historical figure of the time though, so I can't discredit his point of view. Only that it doesn't completely lineup with scripture.

[LeSellers]

So, Jesterss, was there a second floor in Solomon's Temple or not?

If there was, as the Bible says, then what did they do up there?

Why was there a vail on the second floor but not on the first, in Solomon's day.

Why did Herod's Temple (the one Jesus knew) have only a single storey with its vail down there, rather than where Solomon, under the direction of his father, David (who had received his vision from the Spirit), had put it between the rooms in the upper building?

We might also ask where you got the false idea that there were steps leading up to the Holy of Holies, since the Bible mentions no such steps. (As I recall, you said you accepted only the Bible on matters of religion.)

And while we're asking, what happened to the "original" Tabernacle?

Lehi

[Jesterss]

If that were true, why would it have been Elijah who restored the keys of sealing to Christ, in Matthew, and Joseph, in the Doctrine and Covenants?

Lehi

Law of Moses is believed by many to have been forgone since the return of Jesus as far as the christian belief. So the question would still stand.

[LeSellers]

We are talking annexes and portico's. "Additions to" the actual temple. I don't disagree that there were other buildings and rooms surrounding the temple, but the temple (being of the same as the traveling tabernacle) was not two floors as in one on top of the other.

Did you even read the paragraph from Josephus?

Further, you discount entirely the words of the Bible itself regarding the upper chambers. Two mentions, separated bu many chapters tell us there were two floors.

Yeah I think I mispoke above myself, but you're right as far as the door is concerned, the veil was around the ark of the covenant, not the doorway.

You'll have to show me, because that's not in the Bible, nor anywhere else I have ever seen.

I'm not in full agreeance on this. I'm not sure what this other building was that sat on top of it. It's almost as if Josephus is speaking metaphorically. A building on top of a building? Clearly a roof would distinguish that it was only one building. But he distinctly says two buildings. Which makes me question how he is speaking. Josephus doubles the size of the temple, we've known it to be 54' high, he says 60' then there was another building erected over top of it to raise it to 120' total (we have the limits of a temple set at 90' by King Cyrus). Perhaps he is talking about how the court sits below the actual temple and there are buildings in this court, that steps lead up and into the actual temple? Like I say though, I have no clue as to the validity or tone that Josephus is undertaking in this discussion.

The Bible tells us the Temple was 120 cubits high (180 feet). What do yo want?

The Bible tells us there were two floors (both covered in gold). What do you want?

I won't speak on behalf of any evangelicals or defend what is they may believe, but Josephus may not have just been describing the temple, he could have included everything such as the surrounding walls and buildings and annexes and portico's and understood the combined structures as the temple. He was a historical figure of the time though, so I can't discredit his point of view. Only that it doesn't completely lineup with scripture.

Josephus never saw Solomon's Temple. It was destroyed centuries before he was born. He sued documents (lost to us, btw) from the period to write his history of the Jews.

With which scripture(s) does it not line up?

It surely does with 1 Chr 28:11~12 and 2 Chr 3:9. It does, as well, with Ezekiel's vision.

Lehi

[Jesterss]

So, Jesterss, was there a second floor in Solomon's Temple or not?

No. There wasn't. There were annexes built along side it with multiple stories, but the temple itself, containing the holy place and most holy place, did not have a second floor.

If there was, as the Bible says, then what did they do up there?

The bible doesn't say there was a second floor to the temple. as you quoted from 1 chronicles, there was an upper chamber, but it does not say the upper chambers is where the holy of holies was located.

Then David gave his son Solomon the plans for the portico of the temple, its buildings, its storerooms, its upper parts, its inner rooms and the place of atonement. ¹² He gave him the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind for the courts of the temple of the LORD and all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of the temple of God and for the treasuries for the dedicated things.

You are twisting the understanding. David gave his son the plans for all the surrounding things and the treasuries. It does not say that the holy of holies sat above any of these.

Why was there a vail on the second floor but not on the first, in Solomon's day.

Who mentions a veil on the second floor?

Why did Herod's Temple (the one Jesus knew) have only a single storey with its vail down there, rather than where Solomon, under the direction of his father, David (who had received his vision from the Spirit), had put it between the rooms in the upper building?

You already said that the veil wasn't between the rooms. You said there was a golden door between the rooms chained with golden chains. So which is it that you claim?

We might also ask where you got the false idea that there were steps leading up to the Holy of Holies, since the Bible mentions no such steps. (As I recall, you said you accepted only the Bible on matters of religion.)

There are other temples of egyptians and phoenician that exist. Solomon's temple was built by the phoenicians. we know what theirs looked like. Solomon even said he had no idea how to build one so he needed their help. A trap I presume?

And while we're asking, what happened to the "original" Tabernacle?

It was a traveling tent, literally just a dwelling place for God. As for what happened to IT, I have no idea, but God asked David to build him a house, a stationary one.