Tenorikuma

Here's something to ponder. From the early Medieval period right up to the early 20th century, when Jewish artwork portrayed the temple (whether Solomon's temple or Herod's), they drew the Dome of the Rock, complete with its crescent moon decorations.

maryhelena

Yes, sometimes logic has to give way to emotional stuff.....

Sometimes one has to let go of the grieving and get on with living. All sorts of situations arise in ones life. Sure, there is a time for grieving - and sometimes a loss will be a difficult hard load to carry - but one can't undo the past!

Yes, undoubtedly, for some Jews, the loss of Herod's temple - or more specifically - the loss of a Jewish Jerusalem temple - is a cause for mourning. Added to their sense of loss would be the fact that another temple/mosque stands on what they consider their holy ground. The legitimacy questions over Herod's temple are, methinks, a side-issue here.

Reality is a hard taskmaster - and wishful thinking, by some Jews, that they will rebuild a Jewish temple on it's old site, is not only a sad state of affairs but an unrealistic hope that cannot be achieved without major political consequences.

Tradition, ties to the past, can be very strong. But so too can be a vision of a future; a future where Jewish identity upholds it's reverence for the ground beneath that temple - but also gives clear voice to, and celebrates, it's own spiritual heritage. OT prophecy is not only about reclaiming the past but of articulating a vision for the future. (reclaiming the past in the sense that the past is always with us in some form or another...acknowledging where we have come from etc...). That some Jews seem to just want to rebuild past glories - is sad - but that's nothing specifically Jewish. Some people, everywhere, seek to live in the past....the good old days....

But if the Jews, as a people (however one argues that issue...)have survived their past problems - it's pretty obvious they are going to find a way to a future wherein they can hold to both elements of their identity: that devotion, reverence to the land - and the spiritual, intellectual, visions that have enabled them to keep their 'truth'....

Clivedurdle

http://www.fedegarcia.net/writings/baudolino.pdf

Stephan, I agree with you here, Judaism is about the flowing billowing of a tent and meeting one's god in the wilderness. Formal fixed structures are blasphemous.

But Judaism has had huge interactions with empires and their tendency to fix stuff in stone. I think most of the priestly temple aspects of Judaism are a result of a sojourn by the rivers of Babylon, a certain Christ then did pay for a Jewish temple!

The Greeks were never as formal as the Persians about putting their gods in buildings - they did meet them at volcanic vents and drag huge convoys of animals for sacrifice when going into battle. They fought Marathon partly because they believed in the priesthood of all believers in contrast to the Most High Persians.

They left their gods on the top of a mountain.

In many ways Greek attitudes were similar to Jewish ideas, but Judaism possibly is confused by not really being clear which ways it prefers - the old muddled ways of the tent or the modern cities with rules and straight lines and measurements.

I think there is a strong argument that Jewish rebels destroyed Herod's Temple as blasphemous.

Clivedurdle

Domes were of course perfected by the Romans - Pantheon and St Sophia.

The Pantheon is Hadrian's fault. Might the Dome of the Rock actually be Herod's Temple?

Tenorikuma

It was its successor. Muslim tradition notwithstanding, there was no such thing as Islam in the seventh century, and Al-Malik probably saw himself as rebuilding the Jewish temple. And for the next 1100 years or so, his structure served as the temple of the Jews — if not in practice, at least in imagination.

Sheshbazzar

I am asking again, because something is missing in this thread's discussion of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, and the great contrast with Herod's Temple;
What of that First Temple allegedly constructed by Solomon, and all of those Scriptural texts associated with it?

With this skipping from the Tabernacle tent in the wilderness, directly to Herod's Temple, with nothing in between,
I'm not yet challenging or arguing, I'm just trying to figure out WTF is going on.

Is the argument being carried on in this thread based on a premise there never was any such First Temple?
and that all Scripture associated with The First Temple is pure fabrication?
Should we just rip all of that out of The Bible, along with the writings of the Prophets that worked in that milieu?



.

stephan huller

There wasn't even a Solomon

Sheshbazzar

That does not address the question of whether there was a constructed stone and timber בית יהוה 'House of YHWH' in Jerusalem before the 'Second' Temple.

The question being not of whether these OT characters are fictional, but rather was there or was there not a actual YHWH cult center in Jerusalem, and a actual organized and functioning nation of Israel before the Babylonian captivity?

Is it your position that the entire story of the nation of Israel going into Babylonian captivity, and destruction of the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar II is entirely fictional?

You are in this thread emphasizing the Tabernacle in the wilderness tale as a credible reported reality of how Judaism functioned (and one might suppose, think it should still function) while apparently are discounting any reality of Israel having ever constructed any permanent cult structure before the 'Second' Temple.

All I'm asking of you at the moment is to make your position clear. In your opinion, Was there ever a First Temple cult center as described in the Bible?


.

avi

Was there a Moses?

outhouse

The first one is most certainly fiction Stephan.

The second existed.