volgadon Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 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."First, envy and disdain aren't synonymous, though one might contain elements of the other. Second, the Revelation verse refers to a time when heaven is connected to earth, so the meeting place between them is no longer necessary. The holiness required of temples is still there, but magnified untold times. If your point was that temples will be abolished, then the verse doesn't help. All it means is that there will be a holier temple than the one on earth. LDS agree.Third, the idea in the verse is also found in Judaism. 3
Aliwe Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Second, the Revelation verse refers to a time when heaven is connected to earth, so the meeting place between them is no longer necessary. The holiness required of temples is still there, but magnified untold times.I do not hold to a futurist interpretation of Bible prophesy. The Olivet Discourse referred to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The "Great Tribulation" or "Jacob's Troubles" referred to the Holocaust (when a third of world Jewry was murdered) and the First and Second World Wars in general, with the accompanying 1919 superflu that killed many millions. In this interpretation, the New Jerusalem is the Church, which came down to earth with the coming of the Comforter to the upper room on Pentecost Day, thus fulfilling Christ's prophesy that some standing with him on the Mount of Olives would see the Son of Man coming with power before they died. The Body of Christ was indeed empowered on that day, animated by the Holy Spirit. In this interpretation, with the New Jerusalem already among us in the form of the Church, we have no need for temples, or any other foreshadowing device.1Cor.13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Vance Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 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.Those don't support you claim either. The fact is you can't support your claim.
Damien the Leper Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 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."You are still prooftexting. Please supply the Revelation verse in context.1Cor.13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.Same request.
Vance Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I do not hold to a futurist interpretation of Bible prophesy. The Olivet Discourse referred to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The "Great Tribulation" or "Jacob's Troubles" referred to the Holocaust (when a third of world Jewry was murdered) and the First and Second World Wars in general, with the accompanying 1919 superflu that killed many millions. In this interpretation, the New Jerusalem is the Church, which came down to earth with the coming of the Comforter to the upper room on Pentecost Day, thus fulfilling Christ's prophesy that some standing with him on the Mount of Olives would see the Son of Man coming with power before they died. The Body of Christ was indeed empowered on that day, animated by the Holy Spirit. In this interpretation, with the New Jerusalem already among us in the form of the Church, we have no need for temples, or any other foreshadowing device.1Cor.13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.1 Cor 13:10 is obviously talking about a future event. So the "perfect" referred to in that verse is not the "church" to which Paul belonged.I find that interesting. Don't you.
Damien the Leper Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 1 Cor 13:10 is obviously talking about a future event. So the "perfect" referred to in that verse is not the "church" to which Paul belonged.I find that interesting. Don't you.I do. I'm waiting for a properly contextualized response rather than a prooftext. I would even take cited commentary and peer review.
Ron Beron 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.While there was a prohibition I would think that gentiles in general and Christian gentiles in particular wouldn't have even thought about it. Both Jesus and the Pharisees downgraded the importance of the temple and while temple ceremony continued to hold sway it certainly did not have the impact as it did for the Sadducees.
Ron Beron Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 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."Revelation was written after the destruction of the temple and therefore, represents a allegorical shadow.
Aliwe Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I do. I'm waiting for a properly contextualized response rather than a prooftext. I would even take cited commentary and peer review.Now that is astonishing. You will not accept God's commentary in the sacred scriptures, unadorned, but you will accept the "peer-reviewed" commentary of men when we don't even share the same faith tradition.
Aliwe Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 While there was a prohibition I would think that gentiles in general and Christian gentiles in particular wouldn't have even thought about it. Both Jesus and the Pharisees downgraded the importance of the temple and while temple ceremony continued to hold sway it certainly did not have the impact as it did for the Sadducees.The temple in Jesus time was a sort of vanity project of the Hasmonean king, it lacked the Ark of the Covenant, the Urim and Thummim, the sacred fire, the holy oil, and most importantly, the physical presence of God. And for God to restore these things would undermine the perfect sacrifice of his only Son.Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
Damien the Leper Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Now that is astonishing. You will not accept God's commentary in the sacred scriptures, unadorned, but you will accept the "peer-reviewed" commentary of men when we don't even share the same faith tradition.More than once you have shown yourself to be prooftexting. If you are unable to show proper contextualization rather than an interpretation with an agenda then perhaps you should reconsider your argument.It is YOU who provided single verses to substantiate your claim.It is YOU who furthered this tactic by simply citing scriptural authority simply because YOU say its God's commentary. If you would like to start a thread on Biblical authority then by all means do so.It is YOU who are providing a fallacious argument by propogating hearsay and traditionalism.It is YOU who has failed continuously in thread to provide a well documented, well researched and applicable response. 3
John Ping Pong 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?I think your conclusion here is the most obvious answer and probably correct.While Christians adopted (coopted?) the Hebrew Scriptures, they distanced themselves early on from the performance of the temple rites and ordinances prescribed in the Mosaic Law.With no temple rites, they would likely feel no need for a temple. The New Testament indicates early Christians saw temple substitutes in the physical body of the believer, as well as in a heavenly temple.
Ron Beron Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The temple in Jesus time was a sort of vanity project of the Hasmonean king, it lacked the Ark of the Covenant, the Urim and Thummim, the sacred fire, the holy oil, and most importantly, the physical presence of God. And for God to restore these things would undermine the perfect sacrifice of his only Son.Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us Nonetheless, it was used and respected and the most important part of the temple hardware was there; the Menorah. While the temple through proxy sacrifices mirror the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus doesn't mean that the temple has outlived its meaning. The temple in Mormon use as well as the vast number of churches around the world represent God's kingdom here on earth. Paul or whoever wrote Hebrews obviously had no need for the temple, yet the temple continued to be respected and longed for.
Vance Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I do. I'm waiting for a properly contextualized response rather than a prooftext. I would even take cited commentary and peer review.I hope you aren't holding your breath, because it looks like all you are going to get is a "filibuster" from her.
Vance Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) . . . they distanced themselves early on from the performance of the temple rites . . . By continuing to attend until it's destruction?Your conclusion is without basis. Edited June 22, 2012 by Vance
Vance Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Now that is astonishing. You will not accept God's commentary in the sacred scriptures, unadorned, but you will accept the "peer-reviewed" commentary of men when we don't even share the same faith tradition.You come across as someone who has never critically looked at your own beliefs and therefore think they are unassailable.You are in for a big surprise. 1
Damien the Leper Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I hope you aren't holding your breath, because it looks like all you are going to get is a "filibuster" from her.I'm not but I can patiently wait. Filibuster seems to be what she is good at considering the posts that I've observed coming from her. Either she is new in the game of evangelical apologetics or she just doesn't know how to provide a good argument for her position.
John Ping Pong Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 By continuing to attend until it's destruction?Your conclusion is without basis.By deciding at the Jerusalem Conference that Jewish Christians did not need to observe the Law of Moses.My basis is Acts 15.
Hamilton Porter Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Now that is astonishing. You will not accept God's commentary in the sacred scriptures, unadorned, but you will accept the "peer-reviewed" commentary of men when we don't even share the same faith tradition.Well duh, if we're of different faith traditions, we need some objective, peer-reviewed exegesis.Otherwise, "My prophet Thomas S. Monson interpreted it this way, end of argument!!!"You come across as someone who has never critically looked at your own beliefs and therefore think they are unassailable.You are in for a big surprise.Yeah, no kidding. Watch out for that truck! Edited June 22, 2012 by Hamilton Porter
Vance Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 By deciding at the Jerusalem Conference that Jewish Christians did not need to observe the Law of Moses.My basis is Acts 15.Really? In spite of the fact that Paul (who did not tolerate useless things) took men to the temple well AFTER Acts 15?Your argument STILL has no basis.
John Ping Pong Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Really?In spite of the fact that Paul (who did not tolerate useless things) took men to the temple well AFTER Acts 15?Your argument STILL has no basis.You confuse disagreement with no basis. Acts 15 provides a basis for my position.You argue that Paul taking men to the temple suggests that the temple retained its importance in Christianity.What do you do with the story that Paul had a man circumcised well AFTER Acts 15?
Ron Beron Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 By deciding at the Jerusalem Conference that Jewish Christians did not need to observe the Law of Moses.My basis is Acts 15.That is not what was decided. What was decided by James was that Christian gentiles could forgo circumscion as well as other prohibitions incumbent of Jewish Christians. 15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood. 15:21 For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud 65 in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
John Ping Pong Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 That is not what was decided. What was decided by James was that Christian gentiles could forgo circumscion as well as other prohibitions incumbent of Jewish Christians.Good catch, my high flying friend.Better to say that following the law of Moses was made discretionary on Church membership.
John Ping Pong Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 But actually, I'm not sure that is entirely correct, either.Having made the Law of Moses elective on Gentile Christians, didn't James make it less than incumbent on Jewish Christians?
Vance Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) You confuse disagreement with no basis. Acts 15 provides a basis for my position.Yet Acts 21 shows that Acts 15 can't be used as a basis for your position. You argue that Paul taking men to the temple suggests that the temple retained its importance in Christianity.And you are attempting to argue that Paul, taking men to the temple does not show that the temple retained its importance in Christianity. Can you not see how silly that sounds. What do you do with the story that Paul had a man circumcised well AFTER Acts 15?What does circumcision have to do with the temple, before or after Acts 15? Edited June 22, 2012 by Vance
Recommended Posts