Jerusalem Temple (stupid question)

[Eddi]

No.

OK!

 

[metis]

Nowadays the Temple isn't being rebuilt both because there hasn't yet been an Israeli government that was willing to do it (or interested) and because, even if there was, it would be a dangerous political decision because of the uproar that would be caused if the third most important Muslim site was taken apart by "the Jews". We need some good political maneuvering before we can start thinking about the Temple.

There's also the question as to whether the rebuilding should only be ordered by the Messiah.

 

[Colt]

I have a question that hopefully Jewish members will be able to help me with, or at least people who are less ignorant than me when it comes to Judaism.

I don't get the whole Jerusalem Temple thing.

I understand it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE and that it was the centre of Judaism.

I get that...

But how come rebuilding it is such a big deal?

Why hasn't this been done already?

Pardon my ignorance on this matter.

Because the Temple Mount has been Islam for 1400 years. The 2nd Temple was completely destroyed, "not one stone left on top of another" not long after the tragic rejection of the Son of Man, or Son of God or hippie troublemaker, whichever you prefer. Today the Dome of the Rock Mosque sits in the place where it is believed the 2nd Temple stood. Also at the other end of the TM is the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Its the 2nd most sacred place in all of Islam. It was once the center or focal point of Muslim prayer. Jews are a small minority in the Old City of Jerusalem.

It would be a touchy subject if someone tried to tear down the 2 Mosques on top of the Temple Mount. Its not even advised by religious authorities that Jews go up there.

"The current population of the Old City resides mostly in the Muslim and Christian quarters. As of 2007 the total population was 36,965; the breakdown of religious groups in 2006 was 27,500 Muslims (up from ca. 17,000 in 1967, with over 30,000 by 2013, tendency: growing); 5,681 Christians (ca. 6,000 in 1967), not including the 790 Armenians (down to ca. 500 by 2011, tendency: decreasing); and 3,089 Jews (starting with none in 1967, as they were evicted after the Old City was captured by Jordan following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, with almost 3,000 plus some 1,500 yeshiva students by 2013, tendency: growing)" Wiki

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Politics. According to Tacitus, the decision to destroy the Temple was made by Titus to destroy the moral of the rebellious Jews, so naturally later Flavian emperors didn't authorize the rebuilding of the Temple.
A Jewish midrashim source states that Hadrian in the early 2nd century CE had offered the Jews the chance to rebuild the Temple, but was later swayed by enemies of the Jews to change the plans drastically, in a manner problematic to the Jewish religion.
It is theorized by some scholars that during the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Jerusalem was captured by the Jews and they started rebuilding the Temple, but there is no straightforward evidence for this. Even if some version of the Temple was rebuilt, it was quickly destroyed by Hadrian shortly after. Indeed, multiple Christian patristic sources attest to Hadrian having destroyed Jerusalem whilst quelling the Revolt.

The first really serious and better-attested attempt was in the 4th century CE, when Emperor Julian decreed the Temple be rebuilt, however for reasons not entirely clear, the work was halted (sources attest some kind of supernatural fire breaking out; modern scholars think it may have been the result of an earthquake that took place in the Galilee at the time).

There were a few other attempt over the centuries, but none as close as during the time of Julian. The bottom line was that it didn't happen because the Jews never had enough power to do it, and when governments were willing at first, things quickly changed for some reason or other.

Nowadays the Temple isn't being rebuilt both because there hasn't yet been an Israeli government that was willing to do it (or interested) and because, even if there was, it would be a dangerous political decision because of the uproar that would be caused if the third most important Muslim site was taken apart by "the Jews". We need some good political maneuvering before we can start thinking about the Temple.

From Scriptures, is there any evidence that the Temple will be rebuilt at the time of Messiah?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

View attachment 67032
The 2nd Temple was completely destroyed, "not one stone left on top of another"

1. it was not completely destroyed. The western wall remains intact. It is a site for Jews to go pray.

2. It happens somewhere around 40 years after Jesus, so there is no relationship between the two.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Isn't Jerusalem Temple a Christian one rather than to be a Jewish one , please?:

Jerusalem Temple
https://jtaindy.com
Our Mission at Jerusalem Temple Apostolic Faith Assembly is to guide ... and ample opportunity to grow in your relationship with Jesus and His Church.
Address
2125 East 54th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46220
(317) 253-2276
[email protected]

I presume you were trying to be funny. I suggest that you do not quit the day job.

Did one click the link @ :
[email protected] please?
Right?

Regards

 

[Harel13]

There's also the question as to whether the rebuilding should only be ordered by the Messiah.

To some there is. Not me personally, at this point in my life. In many cases (though certainly not all), those are the same people who are against the State of Israel or even coming to Israel.

 

[Harel13]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Isn't Jerusalem Temple a Christian one rather than to be a Jewish one , please?:

Jerusalem Temple
https://jtaindy.com
Our Mission at Jerusalem Temple Apostolic Faith Assembly is to guide ... and ample opportunity to grow in your relationship with Jesus and His Church.
Address
2125 East 54th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46220
(317) 253-2276
[email protected]

Did one click the link @ :
[email protected] please?
Right?

Regards

@paarsurrey what I think @RabbiO meant was that it's obvious that when a temple in Jerusalem is mentioned, it's referring to the Jewish Temple that used to stand on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In fact, in all likelihood, the church congregation you found from a quick Google search is named after the same Temple. He was hoping you were kidding and did not seriously think that the term "Jerusalem Temple" refers to a random Christian congregation in Indianapolis few people have heard of.

 

[Colt]

1. it was not completely destroyed. The western wall remains intact. It is a site for Jews to go pray.

2. It happens somewhere around 40 years after Jesus, so there is no relationship between the two.

1As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings.2“Do you see all these things?” He replied. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

* The wall isn't the Temple
* The Israelites wandered around in the desert for 40 years, does that then discredit God leading them to the promised land? No relation between the two?

 

[RabbiO]

@paarsurrey what I think @RabbiO meant was that it's obvious that when a temple in Jerusalem is mentioned, it's referring to the Jewish Temple that used to stand on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In fact, in all likelihood, the church congregation you found from a quick Google search is named after the same Temple. He was hoping you were kidding and did not seriously think that the term "Jerusalem Temple" refers to a random Christian congregation in Indianapolis few people have heard of.

@paarsurrey -

That explains it exactly.

 

[metis]

To some there is. Not me personally, at this point in my life. In many cases (though certainly not all), those are the same people who are against the State of Israel or even coming to Israel.

Yes, particularly with many of the chasidim.

Also, there are some who do not want the Temple rebuilt as they believe the focus should remain almost entirely on Torah.

 

[Harel13]

Also, there are some who do not want the Temple rebuilt as they believe the focus should remain almost entirely on Torah.

Hmm. I'm not sure I've heard that view. Sounds purely heretical at a glance, but I'd have to see sources.

 

[metis]

Hmm. I'm not sure I've heard that view. Sounds purely heretical at a glance, but I'd have to see sources.

I'm not sure where I picked this up, but it was from a Jewish source.

I do know that some believe that the destruction of the 1st Temple was a blessing in disguise as far as the emphasis in Judaism shifted away from ritual sacrifices and into a heavy reliance on Torah, which obviously includes the Talmud. This is where Judaism is obviously at in today's world.

 

[Harel13]

I'm not sure where I picked this up, but it was from a Jewish source.

I do know that some believe that the destruction of the 1st Temple was a blessing in disguise as far as the emphasis in Judaism shifted away from ritual sacrifices and into a heavy reliance on Torah, which obviously includes the Talmud. This is where Judaism is obviously at in today's world.

There is good in a lot of bad things. Looking back we can see that each destruction and exile assisted in the development of Israel, but I wouldn't say that the destruction as a whole was inherently good or blessed. Each destruction came because Israel had sunk very low, so low that they simply canceled out the Temple itself, in a manner of speaking - the 1st one symbolized the holiness of Israel. No holiness = no Temple. The 2nd one symbolized the unity of Israel. No unity = no Temple. Likewise, the Tabernacle at Shiloh was a dwelling place for the Ark. No Ark (taken by the Philistines) = no Tabernacle. That was on Israel's hands for removing it in the first place.

 

[metis]

Looking back we can see that each destruction and exile assisted in the development of Israel, but I wouldn't say that the destruction as a whole was inherently good or blessed.

Oh, I very much agree as I just was referring to the Temple itself and the adjustments made during exile that then went forward.

Each destruction came because Israel had sunk very low, so low that they simply canceled out the Temple itself, in a manner of speaking - the 1st one symbolized the holiness of Israel. No holiness = no Temple. The 2nd one symbolized the unity of Israel. No unity = no Temple. Likewise, the Tabernacle at Shiloh was a dwelling place for the Ark. No Ark (taken by the Philistines) = no Tabernacle. That was on Israel's hands for removing it in the first place.

Yes, but there was still plenty of disunity during the 2nd Temple Period and the Temple's existence by itself did not prevent that.

Also, Jews outside eretz Israel were hard-put to leave and go all the way to Jerusalem for the sacrifices but they could have access to Torah at their local synagogues. That trend was happening as the Jewish population increased and there were better opportunities elsewhere. Torah gave them that commonality, although the price to pay was over various interpretations and applications of halacha = dissention.

It's a "mixed bag".

 

[Harel13]

Yes, but there was still plenty of disunity during the 2nd Temple Period and the Temple's existence by itself did not prevent that.

The Temple didn't bring unity, it reflected it. As did the First Temple reflect holiness. Regarding the Second one: certainly there was warring between sects during the 2nd Temple era, but the culmination of this warring can be seen when factions were more focused on defeating one another than the Romans. Consider this: In each sect's eyes, the other sect's way of pulling off the Temple service was heresy, pure and simple. Now imagine what it would be like to watch a heretical High Priest perform heretical services in the Temple for years on end. You, from "THE TRUE SECT", would probably feel like your innards are on fire, every single hour of every single day. And yet, civil war, for the most part, did not break out because of the Temple service. They managed to make things work (we can see many examples of such attempts in Mishnaic and Talmudic sources). Smaller sects took off to the desert, like the Dead Sea Sect(s). They (apparently) never started a revolution. So we can see that mostly, there was some form of unity. On the other hand, the Temple essentially stopped working during the Chanukah period because of the active warring between the Hellenistic Jews and the traditional Jews. And that's basically what happened during the Great Revolt.

 

[metis]

The Temple didn't bring unity, it reflected it. As did the First Temple reflect holiness. Regarding the Second one: certainly there was warring between sects during the 2nd Temple era, but the culmination of this warring can be seen when factions were more focused on defeating one another than the Romans. Consider this: In each sect's eyes, the other sect's way of pulling off the Temple service was heresy, pure and simple. Now imagine what it would be like to watch a heretical High Priest perform heretical services in the Temple for years on end. You, from "THE TRUE SECT", would probably feel like your innards are on fire, every single hour of every single day. And yet, civil war, for the most part, did not break out because of the Temple service. They managed to make things work (we can see many examples of such attempts in Mishnaic and Talmudic sources). Smaller sects took off to the desert, like the Dead Sea Sect(s). They (apparently) never started a revolution. So we can see that mostly, there was some form of unity. On the other hand, the Temple essentially stopped working during the Chanukah period because of the active warring between the Hellenistic Jews and the traditional Jews. And that's basically what happened during the Great Revolt.

Yep, and that reflects the standard joke that "Two Jews have three opinions on anything and everything". The commentary system reflects this, which to me actually is very much a plus as it's better to have too many opinions to choose from than not enough.