blueadept Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 My mistake. Simple research indicates that Paul had always considered himself a Jew so the references is not relevant. My hope was to be given scriptures that stated that the non-Jewish Christians could participate in a Jewish Temple......but thanks for the reference.
Mudcat Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 My mistake. Simple research indicates that Paul had always considered himself a Jew so the references is not relevant. My hope was to be given scriptures that stated that the non-Jewish Christians could participate in a Jewish Temple......but thanks for the reference.I think Jews allowed for converts of other races and I do think there was a push by some to bring gentiles into conformity with Jewish tradition.Paul takes Peter on head to head in Galatians on the topic.Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Doesn't explicity state participation in the Temple.. but I think it seems implicit to some degree. 2
Ron Beron Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 My mistake. Simple research indicates that Paul had always considered himself a Jew so the references is not relevant. My hope was to be given scriptures that stated that the non-Jewish Christians could participate in a Jewish Temple......but thanks for the reference.There wasn't an exception for a non-Jew to enter the temple except they converted and agreed to follow the law and be circumcised.
saemo Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Jesus does not use the word "temple" to refer to Himself, He only uses it to describe His body. There is a difference, since only His body was torn down; His spirit never died (and neither do our spirits). His physical body is the tabernacle of God which houses His spirit body, just as our physical bodies (which, by the way, like Jesus' body, are also referred to as temples; see 1 Corinthians 6:19) do the same for our spirits. See also D&C 93:33-35.Also, the Jews in the time of Jesus were misusing the temple. It was time for it to be "torn down" and replaced with His body, which we symbolically partake of with His "bloody of the new testament" (the sacrament) in order to renew our covenants. But this does NOT mean the temple is to no longer be used, and this is pretty obvious when we take note of how frequently the Book of Acts tells us how Paul and other Apostles continued to use the temple even after Jesus' ascension.In essence, Jesus' description of His body as a "temple" is a lot deeper than what you're saying.The purpose of the Jewish temples, actually, was not just to perform sacrifices. That was indeed a major purpose, but there were a lot of things that went on in there.Jesus describes His Church as His body, His body as the temple. St. Peter describes the baptized as the living stones.For Catholics, it is indeed much deeper. The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ made present at every Mass on the altars of our churches, which have been consecrated for this purpose. The Body of Christ made present, and received by the baptized, the living stones of His Church, His Body, His Temple. His Body reserved in a tabernacle...the place where God dwells.I think if you want to delve into the meaning of the Body of Christ, in relationship to temple sacrifice and what that entails In Christian worship....saying to a Catholic (east or west) "it is a lot deeper" is an understatement.
saemo Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) There wasn't an exception for a non-Jew to enter the temple except they converted and agreed to follow the law and be circumcised.Which the NT clearly teaches is not required for a pagan convert to Christianity. Edited May 22, 2012 by saemo
saemo Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 He is, arguably, the real temple, but he is also the word. Does that mean that we no longer need the bible? Your logic is flawed. it is clear that the christians continued to worship in the temple. If it was no longer necessary, then this practice would have stopped. He is our ultimate source, but as the New Testament teaches, we access him through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Else why is there baptism for the dead, after all, of the dead rise not at all?It did stop, because it wasn't necessary.Baptism of the dead is never taught as a saving ordinance.
altersteve Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) Jesus describes His Church as His body, His body as the temple.Exactly. Christ did not refer to Himself as the temple, as you claimed earlier, He referred to His body as the temple. I see a difference.It did stop, because it wasn't necessary.Then why did Christians continue to use the temple after Christ ascended?Baptism of the dead is never taught as a saving ordinance.Baptism is indeed taught as a saving ordinance throughout the New Testament.It's called baptism for the dead, by the way, not baptism of the dead. And it was practiced in the first few centuries after Christ until it was banned at the Third Council of Carthage (which is an excellent example of apostasy). The fact that there is no real evidence in our current New Testament that baptism for the dead was practiced is no surprise to us, and is not a convincing argument that it was "never taught as a saving ordinance." Edited May 22, 2012 by altersteve 1
CASteinman Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 I don't think it is possible to effectively discuss this topic with the uninitiated on an Internet Message board.
cdowis Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) A few thoughts.1. The non-Jewish Christians could not use the temple because the Jewish leaders forbade it. They almost killed Paul when he was accused of allowing Greeks to enter the temple.2. Paul was a Jew, and his presence at the temple demonstrated that fact to the Jewish community. Becoming a Christian did not mean that he renounced his heritage. But he obviously knew that the temple sacrifices were no longer necessary.3. The Saviour visited the apostles for forty days after the resurrection and taught them "the things of the kingdom". However not one sermon, not one sentence, not one word was recorded of His teachings during that time. They were too sacred to be revealed to the world, and the temple ordinances, such as baptism for the dead, was revealed.There are several references in the writings of Paul and Peter alluding to those teachings, e.g. the multiple kingdoms of glory, teaching the Gospel in the spirit world, etc. The Gnostics pretended to have those teachings of the forty days. Edited May 22, 2012 by cdowis 1
Gervin Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) A few thoughts.3. The Saviour visited the apostles for forty days after the resurrection and taught them "the things of the kingdom". However not one sermon, not one sentence, not one word was recorded of His teachings during that time. They were too sacred to be revealed to the world, and the temple ordinances, such as baptism for the dead, was revealed.Of course, anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Bible knows that your statement (bolded) is false. See Matthew 28, Luke 24, John 21.and this, "and the temple ordinances, such as baptism for the dead, was [sic] revealed" is too good to pass up without a CFR. Edited May 22, 2012 by Gervin
saemo Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) Exactly. Christ did not refer to Himself as the temple, as you claimed earlier, He referred to His body as the temple. I see a difference.Then why did Christians continue to use the temple after Christ ascended?Baptism is indeed taught as a saving ordinance throughout the New Testament.It's called baptism for the dead, by the way, not baptism of the dead. And it was practiced in the first few centuries after Christ until it was banned at the Third Council of Carthage (which is an excellent example of apostasy). The fact that there is no real evidence in our current New Testament that baptism for the dead was practiced is no surprise to us, and is not a convincing argument that it was "never taught as a saving ordinance."Jesus referred to Himself as the temple. It is an anagogy. An allusion to a spiritual truth, held in and through the Person of Jesus Christ. HE is our Salvation, not Jewish temple rites.Jewish Christians continued to use the temple. The first council of Jerusalem, related in Acts 15, is based on the issue of gentile converts becoming Christians. Did they also have to become Jews? The answer is no. Jewish temple worship is not included in any teaching to the Gentiles, anywhere.There is not two churches here,there is one church. The first council at Jerusalem is an indication that temple worship is not required for a Christian. If it were, then the Judaizers should have won out and Christian converts from pagan religions should have become Jewish, and participated in temple worship,.The "great apostasy" is a myth. The Holy Spirt was at work at all the councils, from the first in Jerusalem to Varican II fifty years ago.Baptizing the dead was an esoteric practice, never taught by the Apostles. It arose from faith, and belief. In context of the whole scriptures, faith in resurrection and the life to come. It is not an Apostolic teaching. It is not contained in the faith handed on, once for all. Resurrecting an esoteric practice is not restoration, it is innovation.We are judged at the moment of our death. The race is over, as Paul says of himself when he was near to the time of his martyrdom. The race doesn't continue into the next life, requiring pinch hitters to keep it going. Edited May 23, 2012 by saemo
Log Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 The "great apostasy" is a myth. The Holy Spirt was at work at all the councils, from the first in Jerusalem to Varican II fifty years ago.Whatever you say.There's a lot more where those came from. 1
Ron Beron Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Jesus referred to Himself as the temple. It is an anagogy. An allusion to a spiritual truth, held in and through the Person of Jesus Christ. HE is our Salvation, not Jewish temple rites.While Jesus certainly railed against the excesses and vanities that associated itself with the temple he continued to hold sacred the temple and the laws of Moses.Jewish Christians continued to use the temple. The first council of Jerusalem, related in Acts 15, is based on the issue of gentile converts becoming Christians. Did they also have to become Jews? The answer is no. Jewish temple worship is not included in any teaching to the Gentiles, anywhere.Not entirely. There were only Jews who saw Jesus as a messiah. There wasn't a church to succeed Him only followers under James, the brother of Jesus. The term Christian came later when first used in Antioch. Those gentiles who wished to be followers had only to agree to the Noahide Laws i.e., Prohibition of IdolatryProhibition of MurderProhibition of TheftProhibition of Sexual immoralityProhibition of BlasphemyProhibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still aliveEstablishment of courts of lawThere is not two churches here,there is one church. The first council at Jerusalem is an indication that temple worship is not required for a Christian. If it were, then the Judaizers should have won out and Christian converts from pagan religions should have become Jewish, and participated in temple worship,.This speaks against the history of the time. Within years of Jesus' death there were many "churches" of Jesus followers awaiting his return.The "great apostasy" is a myth. The Holy Spirt was at work at all the councils, from the first in Jerusalem to Varican II fifty years ago.This is, of course, an opinion based on the teachings of the Catholic Church and it doesn't necessarily following the history of the time. Baptizing the dead was an esoteric practice, never taught by the Apostles. It arose from faith, and belief. In context of the whole scriptures, faith in resurrection and the life to come. It is not an Apostolic teaching. It is not contained in the faith handed on, once for all. Resurrecting an esoteric practice is not restoration, it is innovation.Then you need to explain that to the Corinthians. Even Paul, in his missionary zeal didn't condemn the practice, nor did the Patristic Fathers. The Corinthians were for the most part obsessed with the dead because of their past Greek and Roman influences. In order to maintain their beliefs in Christianity and the cultural zeitgeist around them the innovated the practice of baptism for the dead. While certainly not a Jewish practice it was practiced in conflation with pagain ideas. For further info let me recommend the following... pdf found here... http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1995_demaris.pdfWe are judged at the moment of our death. The race is over, as Paul says of himself when he was near to the time of his martyrdom. The race doesn't continue into the next life, requiring pinch hitters to keep it going.That speaks against your own belief of Purgatory.
altersteve Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) Jesus referred to Himself as the temple. It is an anagogy. An allusion to a spiritual truth, held in and through the Person of Jesus Christ.Please show me where Jesus referred to Him as the temple. Once again, He referred to His body as the temple, not Himself, and, once again, I see a difference.HE is our Salvation, not Jewish temple rites.Where did I ever say anything that would make you think I disagree with this?Jewish Christians continued to use the temple.Paul wasn't Jewish and he used the temple. See Acts 21:26-30, 22:17-21, 24:6-18, and 26:21.The first council of Jerusalem, related in Acts 15, is based on the issue of gentile converts becoming Christians. Did they also have to become Jews? The answer is no.So?Jewish temple worship is not included in any teaching to the Gentiles, anywhere.Of course not. Why would Jewish temple worship be taught to the Gentiles? Aspects of temple worship were removed, such as animal sacrifice, but the primary purpose of the temple (to worship God and make sacred covenants with Him) is meant to be everlasting.There is not two churches here,there is one church. The first council at Jerusalem is an indication that temple worship is not required for a Christian.Please show me where Acts 15 makes this indication.If it were, then the Judaizers should have won out and Christian converts from pagan religions should have become Jewish, and participated in temple worship,.You still seem to be trying to make the case that only Jews participated in the temple, which is false. Otherwise, why did Paul (who wasn't Jewish) use it? He even saw the Savior in the temple, which puts your position on shaky ground IMO.The "great apostasy" is a myth.In your opinion, of course, but that opinion is not supported by the Bible. "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."The Holy Spirt was at work at all the councils, from the first in Jerusalem to Varican II fifty years ago.Sure. Those councils and their creeds, despite their errors, all testified of Christ -- and if something testifies of Christ, then the Holy Spirit was at work. He is always at work (to at least some extent) on those who will listen.Baptizing the dead was an esoteric practice, never taught by the Apostles. It arose from faith, and belief. In context of the whole scriptures, faith in resurrection and the life to come. It is not an Apostolic teaching. It is not contained in the faith handed on, once for all. Resurrecting an esoteric practice is not restoration, it is innovation.It's not explicitly taught in our current New Testament, but that doesn't mean the Apostles never taught it.We are judged at the moment of our death.Where does the Bible say this? And what about someone who has never heard of the Savior? Do they go to heaven or hell? If one cannot live with God in heaven without accepting Christ, then they have to go to hell and suffer for the rest of eternity, according to traditional Christian doctrine -- but why would a God who is both all-powerful and all-loving do that to someone who had never had the chance to even hear of Jesus? These are questions that have plagued Christianity for centuries and all I see most Christians doing is avoiding any and all attempts to answer them.The race is over, as Paul says of himself when he was near to the time of his martyrdom. The race doesn't continue into the next life, requiring pinch hitters to keep it going.The race is over for this life. The Bible is silent on whether or not it continues afterwards. Edited May 23, 2012 by altersteve
volgadon Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Paul wasn't Jewish and he used the temple.??????????????????????????????????????????
Ron Beron Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 ??????????????????????????????????????????Gameli'el would be rolling in his grave.
Calm Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Paul wasn't Jewish and he used the temple. I think you may be confused by the tradition he was a roman citizen or was called Saul of Tarsus but he was Jewish as well: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/22.3?lang=eng#2 Edited May 24, 2012 by calmoriah
altersteve Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) I understand Paul was Jewish by being of the tribe of Benjamin, but I didn't think Judaism was his religion. But I may have to do my homework better haha. Edited May 24, 2012 by altersteve
Ron Beron Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 In Acts he says he was a very strict Pharisee.And he studied under its chief proponent, Gameliel. Some have even suggested that Jesus was a Pharisee (?).
Damien the Leper Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 ??????????????????????????????????????????Awwwkkwwwaaarrddd.
Aliwe Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 When Herod's Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. why didn't Christians then just build another one, why did they just let it die out? was it seen as something striclty Jewish that had no part to play in Christianity?The temple curtain was ripped from the top down at the instant of Christ's death, which was God's opinion that the era of stone temples was over. After that, Christians themselves became the temple of the Holy Spirit. Even if the Jews build another stone temple in Jerusalem, the ritual to cleanse the "shovel ready" project involves the sacrifice of animals, which were eternally superceded by Christ's final, perfect sacrifice.
Solitario Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 When Herod's Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. why didn't Christians then just build another one, why did they just let it die out? was it seen as something striclty Jewish that had no part to play in Christianity?When Herod's Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. why didn't Christians then just build another one, why did they just let it die out? was it seen as something striclty Jewish that had no part to play in Christianity?I'm wondering what part of original Christianity was left after Nicene Creed declaration that we can infer about the original Christianity. There was never an universal template of Christianity to make a sound judgement.
thesometimesaint Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Aliwe:Except that the Apostles continued to teach in the Temple.
Vance Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 The temple curtain was ripped from the top down at the instant of Christ's death, which was God's opinion that the era of stone temples was over. Can you provide chapter and verse where this is stated clearly and plainly. (You know, "sola scriptura" and all that.)Or are you just giving us your opinion while trying to claim the mantel of speaking for God?
Recommended Posts