Aliwe Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 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.Gosh, who knows? Maybe original Christianity had their own 1890 moment and for political expediency abandoned their "new and everlasting covenant" (DC 132:4) too.
Aliwe Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Aliwe:Except that the Apostles continued to teach in the Temple.For the same reason LDS missionaries preach in the homes of gentiles. You go where the harvest is.
Aliwe Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 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? Matt.27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;Mark.15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.Luke.23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.Those are the scriptures. The significance is obvious, unless you deny it was a miraculous occurrence. The death of Christ removed the spiritual barrier between redeemed humanity and God the Father which went up with the coming of sin. We can now enjoy a close relationship with the Creator again, like in the Garden when God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening.
Ron Beron Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Matt.27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;Mark.15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.Luke.23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.Those are the scriptures. The significance is obvious, unless you deny it was a miraculous occurrence. The death of Christ removed the spiritual barrier between redeemed humanity and God the Father which went up with the coming of sin. We can now enjoy a close relationship with the Creator again, like in the Garden when God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening.Notwithstanding the scriptures the temple and its rituals remained until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. James continued to honor temple ritual.
Tacenda Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 There you brought out the difference. For Christians, Jesus Christ is our temple. He refers to Himself in this way, when He says the temple will be torn down, and in three days raised up again.The purpose of the Jewish temples was to perform sacrifices that were meant for the cleansing of sin. The temple sacrifice is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.Like!
Vance Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Matt.27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;Mark.15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.Luke.23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.Those are the scriptures. The significance is obvious, unless you deny it was a miraculous occurrence. The death of Christ removed the spiritual barrier between redeemed humanity and God the Father which went up with the coming of sin. We can now enjoy a close relationship with the Creator again, like in the Garden when God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening.WOW!!!Nothing like TOTALLY IGNORING what I was asking.Still waiting for chapter and verse defending your, "which was God's opinion that the era of stone temples was over."Then we can get to some of your newer bald assertions. Edited June 21, 2012 by Vance
Aliwe Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Notwithstanding the scriptures the temple and its rituals remained until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. James continued to honor temple ritual.Assuredly he did, since he was a Jew who happened to believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Paul was also one of these, but as the Apostle to the Gentiles, directly commissioned by Jesus Christ, he constructed a network of churches outside of Judea and when the mother church was destroyed in Jerusalem, this network automatically assumed primacy, and the gentile churches did not honor temple ritual, nor could they do so in any event.
Aliwe Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Still waiting for chapter and verse defending your, "which was God's opinion that the era of stone temples was over."Acts.7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet2 Cor. 6:16 ...for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Acts.7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet2 Cor. 6:16 ...for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.This is called Prooftexting.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext"A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, "Then Judas went away and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5b) Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, "Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:37b)"[2]
volgadon Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 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. 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.THere are several other possibilities, such as a loss of authority by the ones running that particular temple, the departure of the angel of the temple, or as a divine sign of mourning. I consider the 3rd option most likely. Also, one wonders if you've considered what the veil might have meant to the Jews of the time, rather than reading your own theological bias into it. 3
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 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?There are some good answers but, to me, your question is in error. The temple of Herod was never a Christian temple. It was a Jewish temple. Now I have no idea if the Christian temple rites were the same as or resembled Jewish temple rites but as far as I know Christian temple rites were not administered in Herod's temple.
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 In order to help the non-LDS who are following this thread, perhaps it would be helpful to show some scripture where the non-Jewish converted Christians could participate in the Jewish Temple such as St Paul himself since he wasn't Jewish but most of the other apostles were of a Jewish background.IMO, this is why LDS have always stressed the importance of Temples while it's a non-issue for the non-LDS folks.I think you need to reread that. Paul was very much Jewish. As Saul of Tarsus he was a young member of the Jewish ruling body, the Sanhedrin.
volgadon Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Matt.27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;Mark.15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.Luke.23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.Those are the scriptures. The significance is obvious, unless you deny it was a miraculous occurrence. The death of Christ removed the spiritual barrier between redeemed humanity and God the Father which went up with the coming of sin. We can now enjoy a close relationship with the Creator again, like in the Garden when God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening.The significance is not obvious. There is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. What you see as a barrier, another might see as pointing to God. The Mt. Sinai narrative was an important traditionin ancient Judaism, I recommend looking into it for the significance of temples. 1
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 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. 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.Whose interpretation is that?
Aliwe Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The significance is not obvious. There is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. What you see as a barrier, another might see as pointing to God. The Mt. Sinai narrative was an important traditionin ancient Judaism, I recommend looking into it for the significance of temples.Jews and Muslims (and even some Christians) have a real problem with Christ's message because they, with perfectly good intentions, exalt God too much. They focus on God's sovereignty, his absolute otherness. But then the Word of God was made flesh and went around saying, no, God wants you to think of him as your dear father. He wants you to call him Poppa and talk to him in prayer all the time. The Muslims said God only had servants, Jews said God only had students, but God the Son said, "No longer will I call you servants, but friends. John 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.In other words, not only was a close relationship between God and man restored by Christ's death and victory-resurrection, as in the Garden, but this relationship was so close it scandalized the Jews. They couldn't stand it. What do you mean no more temple, Holy of Holies, second Veil? What do you mean we call YHWH "Abba" ? Pop?
volgadon Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Jews and Muslims (and even some Christians) have a real problem with Christ's message because they, with perfectly good intentions, exalt God too much. They focus on God's sovereignty, his absolute otherness. But then the Word of God was made flesh and went around saying, no, God wants you to think of him as your dear father. He wants you to call him Poppa and talk to him in prayer all the time. The Muslims said God only had servants, Jews said God only had students, but God the Son said, "No longer will I call you servants, but friends.John 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.In other words, not only was a close relationship between God and man restored by Christ's death and victory-resurrection, as in the Garden, but this relationship was so close it scandalized the Jews. They couldn't stand it. What do you mean no more temple, Holy of Holies, second Veil? What do you mean we call YHWH "Abba" ? Pop?Despite popular wisdom, abba is not "Pops," it is father. There is only one difference between abba and av. The former is Aramaic, the latter, Hebrew. Your caricature of Judaism doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Honi the Circle-Drawer was described as treating God like a favourite child would treat a father. Then you have liturgy such as Avinu, Malkeinu- Our Father, Our King. Moshe Idel has written an entire book on the concept of sonship in Jewish mysticism, densley packed, highly recommended. 1
volgadon Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 As for Jews conceiving of God as distant, these posts should have some food for thought.http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2011/01/were-alike.htmlhttp://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2010/01/parable-on-repentance.html 1
Ron Beron Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Assuredly he did, since he was a Jew who happened to believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Paul was also one of these, but as the Apostle to the Gentiles, directly commissioned by Jesus Christ, he constructed a network of churches outside of Judea and when the mother church was destroyed in Jerusalem, this network automatically assumed primacy, and the gentile churches did not honor temple ritual, nor could they do so in any event.This might be the case except Paul saw no need of physical churches since Jesus was soon to come (maranatha). Paul did indeed set up followers among the gentiles, but whether they shared in the same vision that Jesus and His apostles held is up to question. My slant on it is that Paul was a bit of an usurper and ran counter to the ideals of the apostles. The temple concept continued to hold sway and as many have written (Margaret Barker for one) the gentiles had a certain envy of the temple ceremony. The Byzantines according to legend continued the tradition of lighting the captured temple menorah for generations after.
Damien the Leper Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Assuredly he did, since he was a Jew who happened to believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Paul was also one of these, but as the Apostle to the Gentiles, directly commissioned by Jesus Christ, he constructed a network of churches outside of Judea and when the mother church was destroyed in Jerusalem, this network automatically assumed primacy, and the gentile churches did not honor temple ritual, nor could they do so in any event.You assume that one apostle's audience and focused community(ies) takes precidence over another. Keep in mind that Messianic Jews (Ebionites) did not disappear let alone their traditions. The fact that you entertain the notion that Paul is the Evangelical champion and progenitor is telling. At best, this is a huge mischaracterization. Read Marcus Borg's book The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon.However, I will agree with others in the fact that Resurrection points to Jesus FIRST as the temple that will be rebuilt after three days. I also agree in the theology that our bodies are temples. Does this eliminate the need for modern temples? In respect and in the defense of the LDS, No. Do I personally believe in the need for modern temples? The jury is out. 2
Aliwe Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The temple concept continued to hold sway and as many have written (Margaret Barker for one) the gentiles had a certain envy of the temple ceremony. It was not unreasonable for the gentiles to disdain the temple in those days. After all, there was a standing death penalty for any non-Jew found on the holy precincts. Numbers 1:51 And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.
Damien the Leper Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 It was not unreasonable for the gentiles to disdain the temple in those days. After all, there was a standing death penalty for any non-Jew found on the holy precincts. Numbers 1:51 And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.I would be curious to know how popular such a mindset was during the first century among the Jews. Volgadon? Maklelan? Can you shed some light?
volgadon Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I would be curious to know how popular such a mindset was during the first century among the Jews. Volgadon? Maklelan? Can you shed some light?Fairly common, Josephus describes such riots, as does Acts, and the archaeological evidence from Jerusalem. Aliwe seems to have confused envy with disdain. The temple was actually very impressive to most pagan writers, who ppreciated Jewish devotion to its sanctity. 1
Damien the Leper Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Fairly common, Josephus describes such riots, as does Acts, and the archaeological evidence from Jerusalem. Aliwe seems to have confused envy with disdain. The temple was actually very impressive to most pagan writers, who ppreciated Jewish devotion to its sanctity.I'm curious as to whether Aliwe intentionally confuses the two or was indoctrinated to believe a certain way.
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I'm curious as to whether Aliwe intentionally confuses the two or was indoctrinated to believe a certain way.Yes, I am wondering as well why she assumes it was disdain rather than envy.
Aliwe Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Fairly common, Josephus describes such riots, as does Acts, and the archaeological evidence from Jerusalem. Aliwe seems to have confused envy with disdain. The temple was actually very impressive to most pagan writers, who ppreciated Jewish devotion to its sanctity.This envy and/or disdain apparently carries over into the time of the New Heaven and the New Earth, for it is written in Revelation 21:22 "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
Recommended Posts