Then it is what you believe, and belief is not knowledge, and I asked how you knew not what you believed. And what you have been told through the reading of the gospels and the catholic church is also not your knowledge but as I have pointed out before the knowledge of someone else. So you still haven't answered the question. But never mind. In not answering it, you have answered it.

So I take it that you assume as do many that Jesus wanted to start a new religion? Just because he told Peter that he was the rock on which his church would be built? But nowhere does it state that he asked Peter or any of the apostles to start a new religion, just to spread the gospel and to be witness to what he did. His stating that Peter would be the rock on which his church would be built sounds more like a prophecy to me.

YES!!! It is a selfless love. As in SELFLESS!! Without SELF CONCERN AND SELF IMPORTANCE.

and.....you're sure about this? Want to put money on it? How sure are you? Hmmmm?

You think "US" Christians just made this up?

When Paul wrote to the Christians at Thessalonica it was to assure them that those that died (asleep) had not missed the coming. They had expected the return any day and when some died before the return they worried about this. He said:

But I would not have you to be ignorant brethren concerning them which are asleep that you sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord that we which are alive and remain to the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout with the voice of the arch-angel and with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which ARE ALIVE and remain SHALL BE CAUGHT UP (rapere) together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess 4

Jesus himself said regarding this same subject:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds from one end of heaven to another." Matt 24:31.

I say it because I know it's true. It's not a belief, nor something that someone else told me. You think that christians have a corner on the market? You are narrow minded and narrow of spirit indeed

As I said before don't quote the apostles to me. Paul said Jesus shall rise first. Rise from where? The earth? He's not dead. Certainly not from heaven because according to you heaven is up, not down. And by the way neither are clouds. Those of us which are alive? That can mean only one of two things. 1. They (the apostles or anyone else of that time will live over 2000 years, which is highly unlikely since god specifically states in Genesis that "And God said; My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh; and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years". Genesis 6.3. And no man has lived longer that that to my knowledge. Or 2. They are to be reincarnated because they still have self importance, have not yet the understanding of what Jesus taught and can not dwell in what you call heaven. Now I know this is true because Jesus tells not only Thomas that because of his doubts he will live till Jesus' return, but he also tells some of the apostles that they will also live till he returns. And you tell me that they had "understanding". Obviously not. His elect come from heaven, and heaven is not a place of "sleep" or "death" as you well know, but a place of eternal life.

And by the way Buddhist's also believe in reincarnation, so the gulf between your religion and theirs grows ever narrower all the time, doesn't it?

Yes KFC I am sure and I would put money on it. And by the way the number that shall be saved is 144,000. Which of you can say that you will be one of those numbers? Christians number not 144,000 but in the millions. So tell me what is the defining factor between you that will be taken up and those that won't? Do you think that righteousness belongs to only christians? There is also the rest of the world to consider, and personally I can think of many who are not christians that would hold a place in that number before you or any other christians. Don't forget the jews, they are gods chosen people after all, as was Jesus and the apostles, something christians seem so capable of quickly forgetting.

ok let me get this straight..........

you CAN KNOW the rapture is NOT true and pat yourself on the back....correct?

BUT I CAN'T KNOW it's true? And because I think it's true, I'm narrow minded? Why?

*shakes head* not making any sense nightshades.



he didn't say that. He said that Jesus would descend. Right here:





at his coming. Paul is saying when Christ comes back, those ALIVE at his coming will rise to meet him in the air with those who have already died. Every generation has believed theirs would be the generation alive when Christ returns. That's why this letter was written to show us not to worry, we'll all get to go up with Christ at the end dead or alive.



Reincarnation has nothing to do with Christianity.



Really? And where are you getting that figure from?



Christians are all over the world in every country, so really nothing to consider.



I know history, I know bible history quite well and I know that the Jews were blinded for a while because of their disobedience but God will once more turn back to the Jews and all Israel will be saved. While Christians will be saved from every nation, Israel as a Nation will be preserved in the end.

I didn't say that the rapture was not true. The way most christians perceive it is not true. That to be taken up means to disappear from sight of those who are here.

Where did I read it, Apocalypse 7.3

"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding fast the four winds of the earth, that no wind should blow over the earth, or over the sea, or upon any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, who had it in their power to harm the earth and the sea, saying, "Do not harm the earth and the sea, or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads." And I heard the number of those who were sealed. a hundred and forty four thousand sealed, out of every tribe of the children of Israel; Of the tribe of Juda, twelve thousand sealed; of the tribe of Ruben, twelve thousand sealed; of the tribe of Gad; twelve thousand; of the tribe of Aser, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Nephthali,twelve thousand; of the tribe of Manasses, twelve thousand,of the tribe of Simeon, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Levi, twelve thousand; of the tribe of Issachar, twelve thousand;of the tribe of Zabulon,twelve thousand; of the tribe of Joseph,twelvethousand; of the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand sealed"

"Since christians are all over the earth so nothing to consider". There are others on the earth besides christians. And as I said before christians have no corner on the market of salvation. But it's nice to know that you think that they are the only ones that God considers worthy. As I said before you are narrow in spirit and mind indeed.

Reincarnation has nothing to do with christianity, you are right there, but the jewish religion does believe in reincarnation. And once more Jesus and the apostles were JEWISH.

Their disobediance has nothing what so ever to do with Jesus, or their lack of belief in him, but their own self importance that stands between them and God. And no where in revelations are christians mentioned. The Hebrew nation however is. Try to keep this in mind once more, Jesus was NOT A CHRISTIAN and was never a CHRISTIAN, neither were the apostles, even though they are credited with starting the christian faith, something that I also do not feel that they themselves did, but something that someone else gave them credit for, (Peter wouldn't have known what a church was, they simply didn't exist during his time, or before it), they were all jewish and of the jewish faith, and practiced the jewish religion.

No Jesus and the Apostles never spoke or taught this. IN fact they taught the opposite that we live one life and are judged at the end of it.



Good. But did you notice these were 12 Jewish Tribes and that they were sealed during this time? It has nothing to do with only 144,000 people being saved. These 144,000 are ONLY Jews at the very end. Do you know what their purpose is? To witness to other Jews that Jesus was the Messiah afterall.

Now compare what you just cited in Rev 7 with that Matt 24:31 I just cited above. Do you see anything? Notice the "tribes" mentioned in 24:31 and the elect being raptured? Now go to Rev 7:9 and notice what John noticed at this same time. John was writing about a future prophecy that has not happened yet.

So it goes like this.

1. Jesus comes for his own dead or alive....1 Thess 4:16, Matt 24:31
2. His angels do the reaping and we join Christ in the air Matt 24;31, 1 Thess 4:16 Rev 7
3. The tribes will see this and mourn (day of Atonement)..... Matt 24:31, Rev 7
4. 144,000 will be sealed to be witnessess on the earth to their fellow Jews... Rev 7
5. The wrath of God will be unleased like never before...... Matt 24, Rev
6. Those believing Isrealites will be saved..... Rev 7, Romans 11



name calling isn't going to get you far with me. Yes there are others on the earth besides Christians. Christ said his are called wheat and the others are called tares and that the wheat and tares will grow together until the harvest. His angels (see above) will do the harvesting. It's not what I think at all. It's what Jesus and his Apostles taught. So it's not MY opinion but God's plan and purpose for the world. So if I"m narrow minded wouldn't Christ be as well since he said he is the ONLY way to heaven?

Jesus was THE CHRIST! Christians are nothing more than Christ followers. That's it.



The followers of Jesus (apostles and all of them) were first called Christians in Antioch during Peter and Paul's days there. So yes, I'm sure they were called Christians.

Of course Peter knew what a church was (not in today's sense) because Christ said to Peter "tho art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." Matt 16. Said it right to Peter's face. So where are you getting your info from?

They did not practice the Jewish religion as they did before Christ. They knew that Christ came to fulfill alot of Jewish practices. Jesus was the perfect lamb so there was an end of the sacrificial system right there.

Being a Christian doesn't stop one from being Jewish. Being a Jew or Hebrew is one's heritage that is not taken away by their following Jesus. Jesus was a Jew and said to the Jews to "follow me."

When we become Christians we are grafted into the tree of Abraham. But even the natural branches (Jews) will be pruned and tossed out if they don't believe. We are Jews by adoption if we are not Jews by birth.

The point that I am trying to make is that the bible other than Genesis, (there is a Genesis history for all lands and their people) is Jewish history, and the history of the jewish nation's covenant with THE I AM that they call God. It's history should not be considered the only history. There is no one true religion other than that 'THE I AM" and we are seperated one from the other by our own self importance. And if one truly loves "THE I AM", no matter the name that one calls it, he will of his own efforts put self importance aside to try to be one with it.

THE I AM has it's own convenants so to speak, with other nations as well, simply because their history is not as well known except perhaps to them, doesn't mean that there isn't one, it's presumptive to think otherwise. THE I AM has offered the way to all people of all nations to be one with it, not just through Jesus, who was the one that showed his people that there was a way for them, but the Buddha, who showed his people the way, and Quazecotal who showed his people the way, and Krishna who showed his people the way also, etc. It doesn't matter who these people were, what matters is what they showed us, that it is possible for all men. That's the message and it's far more important than the messenger.

I'm not clear what you mean by "the bible other than Genesis" but I think I do ...anyway I absolutely agree with you here.



and this I wouldn't or couldn't agree with you. When you truly study the diff religions you will find contradictions. One says Jesus is God, one says no. One says there are diff ways to God, Christianity says there is only one way to God and that's thru Christ.

How can you say that there is no one true religion other than the God I AM (which I agree with) and then say others are saying their way is ok too?

The whole Message according to the whole bible is that we are all born sinners and deserve death for our sin. Christ came and paid the dealth penalty for us. He atoned for our sins to make us justified before God. So when we stand before God we will be declared not guilty because we put the blood on our doorposts of our heart. When God passes by mankind (just like in the day of Moses) he will pass us by because we have been cleansed in the blood of the lamb. The other "prophets" all thru time did not preach this message nor did they die for our sins.

John was jewish, and being called "christians" or followers of christ as in he showed them that self could be overcome, doesn't make him less jewish. Calling a rock a truck, doesn't make it a truck. Jesus and the apostles both celebrated the passover together. Christians want to make it something other than what it was so they named it the Last Supper.

Yes, to witness to other jews, and why because Jesus was JEWISH, and his message was for the jewish nation. And he asked that his apostles spread the gospel and the truth of what he said to all things, not to convert them to a new and exclusive religion. The jews have been adhering to self importance for all their history just has all of mankind. Jesus did not forbid Gentiles from following his example of leaving self importance behind, simply because THE I AM, has a convenant with all peoples. THE I AM created all life, not just the jewish nation.

What they taught was one life, not to say that one life is one physical life. Genesis 5.3 - 5.5

"And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his image and likeness, and called his name Seth.

And in the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons amd daughters.

And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Now in Genesis as I quoted before Genesis 6.3

"And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh; and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."

Obvously there was reincarnation involved. And if you don't think so try to explain the above.

I did not call you any names, I said that you were narrow minded and narrow of spirit, that is an observation of the way that you project yourself, not a name.

What he did is the only way to heaven, not who he was. And yes when one puts self aside one does indeed have to be narrow of mind and purpose, but not narrow minded.

 

Actually, within the Jewish faith tradition, it does.  Jews are Jews; Christians are Christions. They are two separate religions. If a Jew converts to Christianity he becomes an apostate. He is not a Jewish Christian which is a contradiction in terms. , from a Jewish point of view. Now, if he should renounce his Christianity and come back to Judaism, he is welcomed home.

 

Be well.

 

Jews do not hold this to be so.  The message in the bible is a message of transformation through relationship with God. We are not born in sin, but we are born, essentially, with our eyes closed.  Our life's processes are directed through following God's commandments, that is, His plan for Holy living, and as a result, we open our eyes, join God, and enter a relationship that has always been what it is, imminant and complete.

 

Be well.

KFC..

You are doing a fantastic job in replying.

You are a very patient woman.:CONGRAT:

you mean to tell me they don't recognize their own prophets? David himself said:

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps 51:5
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Psalm 58:3
From the moment of conception a person possesses a sinful nature.

Ok how about Job? He said:

"Who can bring a clean thing from an unclean? Not one." Job 14:4



I understand this to be correct. I'm just giving it to you from the Christian Jewish perspective, both from the converted Jews to the Gentile Believers according to the NT teachings.



No reincarnation. This is speaking about the flood actually. It would be 120 years before the flood would come. God would give man 120 years before the judgment of the Flood would come. Not sure what you're seeing here?



Thanks Tova, didn't know you were listening in but glad to have you nearby.

 

No, not a sinful nature, but rather, a sinful inclination.

David was speaking about his own immediate history, not Adam and Eve.

We must be very careful with quotes like this.  Uncleanliness has nothing to do with inherited sin.  It has everything to do with ritual purity. This is a common and even present concern among observant Jews.  An observant Jew cannot eat in any but a kosher restaurant because even in a vegetarien restaurant there is the possibility of a worker who had touched pork or some other unclesn thing, coming into contact with a clean thing, thus rendering it unclean.  So, the point is that clean, that is, ritually pure, cannot come from unclean.

See ya.

 

KFC POSTS:

SOdaiho posts:


KFC POSTS:

SO DAIHO POSTS:

Good discussion. May I add my 2 cents worth?

We aren't born in sin, but with the effect of sin (followed from the disobedience of our first parents), upon our soul.

Our nature was corrupted by the sin which darkened our understanding, weakened our will, and left us a strong inclination to evil, that is to do wrong unless always on our guard against it.

Just picked up the thread today...but only the last few pages...shesh, this is getting loooooooong. hahahaha.

Great thread idea Sodaiho.

Thanks, Tova, but who knew?

Frankly, I think its the mix of points of view and, in the main, patient and decent interaction, that makes threads like this both interesting and useful. The originating article seems to get lost along the way.

 

Be well.

 

Most interesting Lula.  This take is somewhat different from my understanding of he meaning of "Original sin." 

Based on this understanding, how would a baby be condemned to hell or purgatory, which is where an unbaptised child is (I thought) said to go at death?

_______________

 

As an aside, it seems to me that there are some of us "religiously oriented" folk who need such a forum as JU provides.  We seem to move our discussion group from one thread to another, but seem typically to come back to some common themes. My feeling is thast we are coming a bit closer together, though we have a ways to go.

May you each be a blessing.

 

If anything is certain in the Catholic faith, it is that unbaptized souls do not enjoy the glory of Heaven. The punishment of Original Sin is the deprivation of the vision of God and the punishment of grevious actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell.

Children who have not the use of reason cannot commit actual (personal)sin and therefore cannot be punished with the torments of Hell, yet OS deprives them of the vision of God, which is enjoyed by all the blessed souls in Heaven.

For Catholics, amongst other things, the Sacrament of Baptism removes Original Sin. As regards children who have died without Baptism, and are without personal sin, are gathered in a place called Limbo of the Just and was often referred to as Abraham's bosom.

A priest replied to a question about the possibility of salvation for the aborted baby, (who obviously didn't receive the graces through Baptism),as follows:

To the same Father and to His mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. The child in other words continues to live and the mother continues to care for her child by "entrusting" him or her to the Father's mercy. God takes care of the children He created and therefore we entrust these children who are prevented from receiving the Sacrament through no fault of their own, to Him with "sure hope". What God will do or how He does this we do not know for He hasn't given us the answer to every question. But we have been assured, even commanded, that we are to trust in His tender mercy.

I greatly enjoy our discussions and learn from them too. Hmmmm.....very interesting that you think we're coming a bit closer....I hope so, and only time will tell!

Essentially you are correct about most of us being born in sin, because it's an attraction to the worldly life that causes us to be born along with karma from past lives.

Essentially however infants are not born sinners. They are the innocents, they have not yet placed self importance over god, because until they become aware of themselves as seperate entities they have no self importance. Hence Jesus's words about the belief of a child. Self importance is a gift that we are given by our parents, families and friends and society. So no infant is ever truly born into "worldly sin". Thus the passage about the sins of the fathers being visited on the sons. Our parents when we are born, are already self important, and they teach us the same.

And for giving man 120 years of life the passage is pretty self explanatory. It is about man being flesh, and the fact that God can not dwell in man for longer because he is flesh. Nothing about the flood there. And the text corncerning God being unaable to dwell in flesh for only 120 years came before Noah, and Noah according to Genesis chapter 5 verse 31 lived to be 500 years old before he begot Sem. "And Noe, when he was five hundrd years old begot Sem,Cham, and Japheth."

Now lets go to Matthew 17 1-13 for more proof
Chapter 17 Jesus Transfigured


"Now after six days Jsus took Peter, James and his brother John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves, and was transfigured before them. And his face shone as the sun, and his garments became white as snow. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking together will him. Then Peter addressed Jesus, saying "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If thou wilt, let us set up three tents here,one for thee, one for Moss, and one for Elijah." As he was still speaking, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased; hear him." And on hearing it the disciples fell on their faces and were exceedingly afraid. And James came near and touched them, and said to them, "Arise, and do not be afraid." but lifting up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only."

ON THE COMING OF ELIJAH

"And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus cautioned them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one, till the Son of Man has risen from the dead." And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why then do the Scribes say that Elijah must come first?" But he ansswered and said, "Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hands." THEN THE DISCIPLES UNDERSTOOD THAT HE HAD SPOKEN OF THE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST."

Now Mark Chapter 8 verse 27 - 30.

PETERS CONFESSION

"And Jesus and his disciples went out into the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, saying to them, "Who do men say that I am?" they answered him, saying, "John the Baptist; others, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets."

Well John the Baptist was dead as the people of Israel well knew. And so was Elijah. And yet if they had no belief in reincarnation, why would they believe that Jesus could have been either?


Now for whom Jesus was sent to minister to:

Matthew 15.21

THE CANAANITE WOMAN

"And in leaving there, Jesus retired to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Cananite woman came out of that territory and crid out to him, saying, "Have pity on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is sorely beset by a devil." He answered her not a word. And his disciples came up and besought him saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." But he answered and said, " I WAS NOT SENT EXCEPT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL."

Also Matthew 10.5

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, having instructed them thus: "DO NOT GO IN THE DIRECTION OF THE GENTILES, NOR ENTER THE TOWNS OF SAMARITANS; BUT GO RATHER TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. And as you go, preach the message, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand!"

He was indeed to be a witness to the Gentiles, he wasn't there however to "save them", he was sent to save the LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL.

"And you will be brought before governors, and kings, for my sake, for a witness to them and to the Gentiles."

I know what I am seeing there, do you?

Of course you wouldn't. You desire exclusivitiy. And for the final time, Jesus did not die for yours or anyone elses sins. Jesus did not pay the death penalty for you. You will still die as long as you are in the FLESH, to repeat myself and the bible yet once more god can not dwell in man for more than 120 years because man is FLESH.

As to others they may call THE I AM by other names, but it is still the SAME I AM, just as a rock is still a rock no matter what it is called.

Jesus is the Christ, but that doesn't make him CHRISTIAN. The christ is simply what he became when he gave over his free will to god, and put self behind.

As to the other prophets, they were prophets only for the PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. Since Jesus was chosen to SHOW them the way, as well as tell them, which indeed the other prophets did try to tell them many times, of course they didn't preach his message as he did but it was still the same message. And those of them that walked with God did die willing to renounce worldly sin, just not as publically as he did. The Israelites would not take the messages of the prophets before Jesus to heart, so they had to be SHOWN.

LEAUKI,

In reviewing some of the comments of the blog, I just realized I haven't thanked you for posting this info about the temple.

Lula posts: [quote]I'm interested. Could you be a little more specific?

Leauki posts: #69

When Moses brought the law, the Children of Israel were nomadic; they just fled Egypt.

The law didn't demand a temple but merely a portable place of worship, the Mishkan (also called the tabernacle, because it was a tent sort-of-thing). The root WKN means "neighbour", MWKN means "dwelling place". It was a place for G-d to "dwell" (symbolically) among His people.

Over a hundred years later, after Israel had taken Jerusalem, king Solomon built a temple to replace the tabernacle. The temple was built on one of the hills where Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac. The Hebrew name for the temple is Beyt Miqdash (from "bayit" = "house" and "miqdash" = temple (i.e. "thing that is holy").

About 500 years later the Babylonians destroyed the temple and Judaism was without a temple again. However, the Persians conquered the Babylonian Empire and built a new temple.

It stood for another 500 years on the same hill as the first one until it was destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans who were at that time in the habit of killing Jews (including the odd rabbi named Jesus).

Since then there hasn't been a temple.

Judaism has rules for both life with and life without a temple. But the original rules did not speak of a temple.

Did it never occur to you that since Moses received the laws in the desert of Sinai and not in an existing temple in Jerusalem, the law could not possibly REQUIRE the temple to exist (since it didn't)?

The temple cannot be rebuilt now because Umar had a mosque built at its place (presumably to protect the site against vandalism).

It's sad but luckily the temple is not necessary.[/quote]

Note I highlighted your last statement...which I'll get back to.


I note you brought up the Tabernacle which prompted some research on my part.



Exodus 25:8-10 "God said to him: "they shall make me a sanctuary and I will dwell in the midst of them. According to all the likeness of the Tabernacle which I will show thee and for all the vessels for the service thereof."

Here God tells Moses that He will dwell in the midst of them and yet you say that God was symbolically there.

If my understanding is correct, the Tabernacle was made up of 2 parts...the front and the larger part was the Sanctuary and the smaller part was the Holy of Holies. In the Holy of Holies Moses placed the Ark of the COvenant which was covered with gold inside and out. In the Ark, Moses placed the stone tablets of 10 commandments and later on the Ark contained a vase filled with Manna and the rod of Aaron. It was covered with a golden lid called the Propitiatory at which ends stood 2 cheribum (angels)of gold looking at each other with their wings spread to overshadow the Propitiatory.

In the Holy were placed 3 sacred objects, an altar of incense, the 7 branched candelstick, with 7 lamps were perpetually burning, and the table of the 12 loaves of unleavened breads all overlaid with gold. By the side of the table was a vial of wine. Only the priests could enter the Holy and only the High PRiests could enter the Holy of Holies once a year. When all was completed Moses poured sacred oil on the Tabernacle and all it contained and a cloud covered the Ark of the COvenant and the glory of God filled the Tabernacle and rested between the 2 cherubim. So this seems to refute your saying it was symbolic, rather God was actually present in the pillar of cloud resting on the Ark was He not?



This is the Temple Solomon built and when it was finished all the ancients of Israel and the princes assembled and joyously carried the Ark of the Covenant in as far as the gates and then the priests brought it to the Holy of Holies. Once again the majesty of God filled the Temple in dazzling glory...this was a sign that God was well pleased. After Solomon's prayer, fire fell from heaven and consumed the holocaust. The Israelites fell prostrate and adored the God of Heaven and the Lord God had sanctified His house. The Temple was a holy place.

The Israelites had a place where they could worship in common, praise God and ask for blessings, etc. and so it was on this account that God requires a place of worship. For this cause He Himself designed the Tabernacle and later on the Temple. In the Temple God was present in a special way.

[quote]About 500 years later the Babylonians destroyed the temple and Judaism was without a temple again. However, the Persians conquered the Babylonian Empire and built a new temple.

It stood for another 500 years on the same hill as the first one until it was destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans who were at that time in the habit of killing Jews (including the odd rabbi named Jesus).

Since then there hasn't been a temple.

Did it never occur to you that since Moses received the laws in the desert of Sinai and not in an existing temple in Jerusalem, the law could not possibly REQUIRE the temple to exist (since it didn't)?[/quote]

I think you are playing down the significance of the Temple a bit much.
It seems to me that the Lord God made quite a thing about the Temple especially since it kept the Holy of Holies and God ordained sacrifices to be the center of divine worship under the Mosaic Law. They were shown that they themselves could not make satisfaction, but required a mediator. The entrance of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies and his blood offering on the day of atonement dignified that reconciliation with God can only proceed from His throne.



Well, Mosaic Judaism certainly didn't have rules for both life without a Temple...

The Judaism that flowed from the times after 70AD when there was no more Temple, no more sacrifices, etc. is not with rules from God as was Mosaic Judaism. The rules for life without a temple are from man, not God.

and that's why you can say that the Temple is not necessary.