Christianity And The Temple-Why Didn'T They Keep It Going?

[John Ping Pong]

Yet Acts 21 shows that Acts 15 can't be used as a basis for your position.

That is open to debate.

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.

Paul took men to the temple in a hypocritical attempt (at the direction of James, I believe) to show Paul actually followed the Law of Moses when he no longer believed in it.

It is a classic instance of bad things happening from following the advice of a church leader.

What does circumcision have to do with the temple, before or after Acts 15?

You argue that Paul's going to the temple after Acts 15 shows his approval of the institution.

To be consistent, you must then agree that Paul's circumcising a Christian male after Acts 15 does the same.

[Vance]

That is open to debate.

Ignoring the rather obvious is one approach in maintaining ones baseless position.

Paul took men to the temple in a hypocritical attempt (at the direction of James, I believe) to show Paul actually followed the Law of Moses when he no longer believed in it.

Simple presumption on your part. You have no basis for that position either. You can't provide Chapter and verse for support because none exist. (Well, unless you presume it means something that it doesn't actually say, of course).

It is silly as well. Paul doing something to show that doing it is irrelevant? Makes no sense at all.

It is a classic instance of bad things happening from following the advice of a church leader.

You are making assumptions about the quality of the advice and doing so without basis.

You argue that Paul's going to the temple after Acts 15 shows his approval of the institution.

And you argue that Paul's going to the temple after Acts 15 shows his disapproval of the institution.

Which sounds more reasonable?

To be consistent, you must then agree that Paul's circumcising a Christian male after Acts 15 does the same.

And ignore a plethora of verses written by him?

Still waiting for you to show what circumcision has to do with the temple.

[Hamilton Porter]

Aliwe sounds like a James White disciple. Phony degrees are good, peer review sucks.

[Aliwe]

By deciding at the Jerusalem Conference that Jewish Christians did not need to observe the Law of Moses.

My basis is Acts 15.

I would suggest that the laws they forbade at the Council of Jerusalem were only those ceremonial laws (no food offered to idols, no food with blood, no strangled meals, no visitation of pagan temple prostitutes) that would cross a certain line with the Jews if Gentile Christians did them. Certainly it wasn't carte blanche for Gentiles to commit murder, steal, or sleep with their sisters. That is the moral law of God. It differs from ceremonial law in that it is ALWAYS wrong to break that law, no matter who does it, or when, and that was never in question.

[ERayR]

It is remarkable how quickly we abandon long held traditions. In the few short years of world war 2, the church in Germany became quite bastardized with all sorts of changes. The church in Africa and Eastern Europe is under constant guidance to avoid apostasy. I suspect that the destruction of the temple was devastating, but after a few years of living without it, the people adapted and forgot about needing to replace it. Without divine instruction to do so, they just moved on to other matters they considered important.

The christian faction never had control of the temple as far as I know and christian rites were not performed in the temple as far as I am aware.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Aliwe sounds like a James White disciple. Phony degrees are good, peer review sucks.

I was thinking she was JW.

Waite James White -JW. Lol

Edited June 22, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Ron Beron]

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?

Not at all. Given the fact that James and Jesus were ardent supporters of the Mosaic Law it is not feasible that they would make it elective. The Mosaic Law wasn't destroyed only fulfilled.

[Ron Beron]

I would suggest that the laws they forbade at the Council of Jerusalem were only those ceremonial laws (no food offered to idols, no food with blood, no strangled meals, no visitation of pagan temple prostitutes) that would cross a certain line with the Jews if Gentile Christians did them. Certainly it wasn't carte blanche for Gentiles to commit murder, steal, or sleep with their sisters. That is the moral law of God. It differs from ceremonial law in that it is ALWAYS wrong to break that law, no matter who does it, or when, and that was never in question.

They were referred to as the Noahide Laws...

The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are

1. Prohibition of idolatry
   
2. Prohibition of murder
   
3. Prohibition of theft
   
4. Prohibition of sexual immorality
   
5. Prohibition of blasphemy
   
6. Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
   
7. Establishment of courts of law
   

1. 
   

Edited June 23, 2012 by Ron Beron

[volgadon]

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.

This isn't God's commentary, unadorned, it is prooftexting in support of a certain protestant reading.

[Aliwe]

This isn't God's commentary, unadorned, it is prooftexting in support of a certain protestant reading.

Which is ironic, really.

[volgadon]

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.

Don't you realise that 70-80 years ago, your interpretation would have been futurist?

Also, I don't see the world in the condition John described.

[Damien the Leper]

Which is ironic, really.

Please define irony, first. Then I would like for you to clarify that which is ironic.

If you are speaking of the irony concerning the failed theology of the Protestant flavor you so readily eat...well, lets just say you have more serious theological problems than you have expressed here.

[Aliwe]

Please define irony, first. Then I would like for you to clarify that which is ironic.

Irony is when you end up with an outcome that would never in a million years have been predicted from the initial conditions. It's God giving the tortoise a drag co-efficient of 0.03. It's mildew growing on the outside of your clorox bottle. It's a fundamentalist book-burner throwing the Bible on the pyre for all the sex and violence contained therein.

[Aliwe]

Don't you realise that 70-80 years ago, your interpretation would have been futurist?

Also, I don't see the world in the condition John described.

A futurist says all prophesy will be fulfilled on a future timeline. A preterist says it is all past-tense. I'm sort of in the middle, some is future, some is past.

[Damien the Leper]

Irony is when you end up with an outcome that would never in a million years have been predicted from the initial conditions. It's God giving the tortoise a drag co-efficient of 0.03. It's mildew growing on the outside of your clorox bottle. It's a fundamentalist book-burner throwing the Bible on the pyre for all the sex and violence contained therein.

You have still not explained what is ironic, as you claim, in your post #110.

[volgadon]

You have still not explained what is ironic, as you claim, in your post #110.

But she did shatter a dearly-cherished belief of mine, that irony is like goldy and bronzy.

[Ron Beron]

You have still not explained what is ironic, as you claim, in your post #110.

Irony is the opposite of wrinkly.

[Aliwe]

You have still not explained what is ironic, as you claim, in your post #110.

The irony is that I was Catholic, when you said I was "prooftexting in support of a certain protestant reading". Of course now I'm between churches.

[Damien the Leper]

The irony is that I was Catholic, when you said I was "prooftexting in support of a certain protestant reading". Of course now I'm between churches.

That's not irony...that's apostasy. Have you talked to your ecclesiastical leaders first?

[Damien the Leper]

Irony is the opposite of wrinkly.

You need to stop that!

[Damien the Leper]

But she did shatter a dearly-cherished belief of mine, that irony is like goldy and bronzy.

I wish there were some way to help restore you dearly-chrerished belief. Perhaps prayers are in order?

[volgadon]

I wish there were some way to help restore you dearly-chrerished belief. Perhaps prayers are in order?

Alas, shattered like the contents of Pamplona porcelain shops.

[volgadon]

A futurist says all prophesy will be fulfilled on a future timeline. A preterist says it is all past-tense. I'm sort of in the middle, some is future, some is past.

You made it sounds as if you don't believe any of the prophecy is future.

[Aliwe]

You made it sounds as if you don't believe any of the prophecy is future.

Well, obviously, the coming of our Lord is future. And the Messianic Age when everything is banging on all six cylinders is future. We're getting there. Baby steps.

[volgadon]

Well, obviously, the coming of our Lord is future. And the Messianic Age when everything is banging on all six cylinders is future. We're getting there. Baby steps.

So, if the coming of our Lord is future, if the messianic age is future, then how is Revelation 21 refering to past events?