Jesus on Jewish animal sacrifices?

[Robot iMonkey]

I'm sorry, but reading some things into an ancient text is anachronistic, and looking for a condemnation of animal sacrifice in that story because it is "mortifying revolting" to a 21st century urbanized Western mind-set is one such.

More broadly, coming at the text and saying "I find x revolting, therefore this must be a condemnation of that" is the wrong way to approach most texts and certainly the wrong way to approach any biblical text. You need to read the text for what it addresses, not what you think it should address.

I'm reading Moby Dick and saying in shock, "Oh no! they are going to kill the whale! Whales are endangered! Bad evil hunters!! Don't they know the ground (and the gulf of Mexico) is full of oil they could use instead?!?"

What is anachronistic in many of the replies is talking about the death of Jesus as an attempt to explain his actions a couple of years BEFORE he died. What was it that lead to his death? What was Jesus doing that offended the Sanhedrin who met in the Temple in Jerusalem? FORGIVING SIN in a way that did not involve burnt offerings (animal sacrifices.)

 

[ebia]

I'm reading Moby Dick and saying in shock, "Oh no! they are going to kill the whale! Whales are endangered! Bad evil hunters!! Don't they know the ground (and the gulf of Mexico) is full of oil they could use instead?!?"

What is anachronistic in many of the replies is talking about the death of Jesus as an attempt to explain his actions a couple of years BEFORE he died. What was it that lead to his death? What was Jesus doing that offended the Sanhedrin who met in the Temple in Jerusalem? FORGIVING SIN in a way that did not involve burnt offerings (animal sacrifices.)

What offended them is forgiving sins that evaded the Temple system and themselves as duly appointed officers of that system altogether.

 

[drich0150]

So He turned over the benches of those SELLING DOVES and would not allow anyone to carry MERCHANDISE (I presumed sacrificial animals) through the temple courts. What does Jesus want the temple to be? A house of PRAYER for all nations. Does PRAYER involve killing animals?

Then like now, prayer works off of the blood of the innocent for the sake of the guilty. So yes because the blood of Christ had not been split it was necessary for the blood of the animals to flow. (Quite frequently)

What I know about the money changers is similar to current banking. Put probably better since Jewish laws forbid charging interest. But that is not what I am asking about. Back to animal sacrifices and identifying the view of Jesus...

The money changers were used to take "roman" money and exchange it for "temple" or holy money.(Because you could not "defile" the temple with "unclean" gentile money.) But the exchange rate was extremely high, (I have heard it speculated to be something like 20 to one.) most poor people who came to the temple (as it was required by the mosaic law) to give or to have an animal sacrificed in their name. they brought their own animals. But, because the animals endured such scrutiny (They had to be Without spot or blemish) The Priest that usually did the inspecting (For spots or blemishes) would always find something, or some reason that made the animal unclean/not worthy of sacrifice.

So the poor people if they wished to follow the law, had to sell their sacrifices (at a reduced rate because it was a buyers market) and then take that money to the money changers (at a 20 to one exchange rate) and try and but a "certified/clean" animal. Buy the time the crooks got done with them, most of the people who came with larger animals could only afford to buy small doves.. (The smallest animal that could make a satisfactory sacrifice according to the Law. I also believe this mockery of a forced sacrifice was one of the Reasons both Mt. and Mk. mentioned the Dove table.)

Now imagine How God/Jesus felt when He saw those who wanted to do as they had been commanded, were hindered and abused by the people He put in charge of facilitating this whole process.. It would kinda make one want to turn over a table or two right? It would also kinda make someone want to exclaim how a holy place has been defiled by common thievery..

Just because Jesus is Jewish tells absolutely nothing about his opinion on anything. He's the guy throwing tables around, not walking down the street.

Jesus didn't need to say anything because everyone who lived there knew what was going on. And to further add insult to injury It is my understanding alot of the animals who were deem not fit for sacrifice, at the time they were presented, were later sent through a simple cleansing ritual and they were sold back to other people to sacrifice at a much higher price, than what they were purchased at.

(And even that assumption about the guy walking down the street is like saying all men in San Francisco are gay and all women living in Amsterdam are prostitutes.)

Not quite sure what any of this means.

But, OK, most responders have said Jesus came to the temple and was upset the people were being overcharged. Not upset about the practice they were conducting. So OK, please tell me. What's so great about ritualistically killing animals that you do not find it mortifying revolting?

It was the "Pre-Messiah" requirement as stated in the Mosaic Law. When one is bound to the Law for their righteousness, then one has to obey the law in order to be found righteous (To be found acceptable before God.) Personal "feelings" do not have anything to do with righteousness. If you are bound by the law then you can not pick and choose what you wish to adhere to. Animal sacrifice, was a command given by God through Moses. That was the norm until Christ took the place of the animals.

If you still think Jesus was apposed to these sacrifices then simply show where the mosaic law outlaws these practices.
You have to remember Jesus was born, raised, and lived as a Jew, not Christian.

 

[Norbert L]

Was Jesus FOR them or AGAINST them?

Did Jesus go to the temple and make sacrifices? Did He tell anybody else to? Did He praise or thank the priests for making sacrifices?

A lot of people talked to Jesus about their sins. Considering this is the core subject of many conversations recorded, if Jesus had anything positive to say about temple sacrifices, it would be there.

Jesus is offering a new and betterway. Manna. The blood of bread. Not of animals.

What would you make of the following:

"Then He put out His hand and touched him, saying, "I am willing; be cleansed." Immediately the leprosy left him. And He charged him to tell no one, "But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded." (Luk 5:13-14)

Now here's what's involved.

"Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "This shall be the law of the leper for the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought to the priest. And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall examine him; and indeed, if the leprosy is healed in the leper, then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two living and clean birds... " (Lev 14:1...)

Now I would say nothing like a big thumbs up is expressed, but NEITHER is a big thumbs down. Rather His instruction also testifies that He is the authentic Christ and not some imposter as the scriptures show:

"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods'—which you have not known—'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deu 13:1-3)

Basically Jesus performs a wonder by miraculously curing leprosy and then tells the person to follow the ways which His people know. And NOT ways His people "have not known". And as ceremonously as those ways are too, Jesus by His instruction to the man shows He was for them and not against them.

 

[Robot iMonkey]

You cut it off before the really juicy part, but the good news (no pun intended) is that only one of the birds die. The other one just has a really bad day.

The LORD said to Moses, 2 "These are the regulations for the diseased person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the priest:http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-1 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him.http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-2 If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease,http://www.christianforums.com/#fn-descriptionAnchor-ahttp://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-3 4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssophttp://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-4 be brought for the one to be cleansed.http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-5 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot.http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-6 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water.http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-7 7 Seven timeshttp://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 he shall sprinklehttp://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean. Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields.http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 8 "The person to be cleansed must wash his clothes,http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 shave off all his hair and bathe with water;http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 then he will be ceremonially clean.

Thanks for showing me this. I agree it is not a clear thumbs up or down. This is the clearest indication of Jesus functioning on the edge, but acknowledging, the temple sacrifice culture he lived in. The phrase "as a testimony to them" could be taken as "you are doing this for the priests, not for me." but it is not clear.

This is NOT a burnt offering at the temple. This ceremony is something that is to happen "outside the camp." Which raises a few questions for me. I know that the nation of Isreal stopped temple sacrifices when the temple was distroyed in about 70 AD. What about this type of animal sacrifice? I doubt it is still practiced. If or when was this type of ceremony abolished in Jewish religious practice? What evidence is there this ceremony was still practiced in the time of Christ, with a large temple instead of a large traveling group in "the camp"?

 

[Robot iMonkey]

dritch0150,
So your opinion is that Jesus just wanted to clean up the cheating in the game, but really liked the game and found it good and holy.

I think Jesus wanted to abolish the game completely. Not better living under the law, but to abolish the law. He was a revolutionary, not a politician. The message Jesus preached was, put simply, "YOU DO NOT NEED A SACRIFICE"

 

[Robot iMonkey]

Jesus taught repeatedly ~ against ~ the practice of sacrifice in the Gospel of Matthew, where he twice invoked Hosea 6:6 to argue that God desires mercy instead: the very opposite notion.

If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Thank you Marlowe007!

 

[drich0150]

So your opinion is that Jesus just wanted to clean up the cheating in the game, but really liked the game and found it good and holy.

I know your confused but how could you possible extract this from what i originally posted?

I illustrated that while Jesus was alive He lived under the mosaic Law. Which demanded animal sacrifice. It wasn't till after His Death (When His blood substituted for the blood of all animals) that animal sacrifice was no longer necessary. But, again that didnot happen till after he died and was resurrected.

When I said Jesus was born raised and lived as a Jew and not a "christian" That Meant that He lived under the Mosaic law.
The principles of Christendom (as we know them) weren't established till after his death.

I think Jesus wanted to abolish the game completely. Not better living under the law, but to abolish the law.

Then how do you reconcile passages like:
Mt5:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The message Jesus preached was, put simply, "YOU DO NOT NEED A SACRIFICE"

Where did he specifically say that? (Chapter and verse)

If that were true then why would he say:

Mark 14:12
[ The Lord's Supper ] On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

Luke 5:14
ThenJesus ordered him, "Don't tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."

 

[ebia]

dritch0150,
So your opinion is that Jesus just wanted to clean up the cheating in the game, but really liked the game and found it good and holy.

I think Jesus wanted to abolish the game completely. Not better living under the law, but to abolish the law. He was a revolutionary, not a politician. The message Jesus preached was, put simply, "YOU DO NOT NEED A SACRIFICE"

I think you're well off track - the Law had a purpose, but that purpose is fulfilled in Jesus. So the Law comes to an end not because there was something wrong with it, but because all it can and was intended to achieve was to bring people to this point.

Sacrifice was (and is) needed, but the nature of that need and how it's fulfilled changed with the ultimate sacrifce of the cross.

 

[Robot iMonkey]

At what point did Jesus become Messianic? Was it when He was miraculously conceived? when He was born? When He performed His first miracle? Was baptized? Forgave people of their sins? Was crucified? Was resurrected?

 

[Robot iMonkey]

I know your confused but how could you possible extract this from what i originally posted?

I illustrated that while Jesus was alive He lived under the mosaic Law. Which demanded animal sacrifice.

He also lived under Roman rule. He said things like "Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" Looks to me like he was much more upset about what the temple represented than what Roman rule represented.

It wasn't till after His Death (When His blood substituted for the blood of all animals) that animal sacrifice was no longer necessary. But, again that did not happen till after he died and was resurrected.

I understand your view that the Hebrew practice of offering animal sacrifices to appease a blood-thirsty God was a good thing. I just disagree with that doctrine, and the concept that God was finally satisfied by the death of a sinless human. I know those doctrines are so foundational to you and to many large structures of Christian thought that you can't see past them to even listen to the actual words of Jesus in any other context. I think the message Jesus PREACHED was distorted by those who plotted and successfully murdered Jesus and celebrated His death.


When I said Jesus was born raised and lived as a Jew and not a "Christian" That Meant that He lived under the Mosaic law.
The principles of Christendom (as we know them) weren't established till after his death.

You are right that Paul's Gospel that 'you should be glad Jesus died' wasn't established till after His death. But the actual followers of Jesus who followed the actual TEACHINGS of Jesus were out practicing new rituals like baptism instead of animal sacrifices.


Then how do you reconcile passages like:
Mt5:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


The message Jesus preached was, put simply, "YOU DO NOT NEED A SACRIFICE"

Where did he specifically say that? (Chapter and verse)

I have no idea how many times Jesus said "Your sins are forgiven."

If that were true then why would he say:

Mark 14:12
[ The Lord's Supper ] On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

Do you know what I see missing from all the versions of the Last Supper? LAMB.
Ok, they probably had their traditional bar-b-q. No more harm in that than hunting easter eggs.

Luke 5:14
ThenJesus ordered him, "Don't tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."

This is discussed in detail in another message. But I wonder how many times Jesus is quoted: "YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN" such as in Luke 5:20. That is what makes him a Messiah to me.

 

[ebia]

At what point did Jesus become Messianic? Was it when He was miraculously conceived? when He was born? When He performed His first miracle? Was baptized? Forgave people of their sins? Was crucified? Was resurrected?

What do you mean by "become Messianic"? It's pretty much a meaningless question. The point of his annointing is his baptism, but that's not where the story starts.

 

[Insubres]

I'm reading Moby Dick and saying in shock, "Oh no! they are going to kill the whale! Whales are endangered! Bad evil hunters!! Don't they know the ground (and the gulf of Mexico) is full of oil they could use instead?!?"

What is anachronistic in many of the replies is talking about the death of Jesus as an attempt to explain his actions a couple of years BEFORE he died. What was it that lead to his death? What was Jesus doing that offended the Sanhedrin who met in the Temple in Jerusalem? FORGIVING SIN in a way that did not involve burnt offerings (animal sacrifices.)

What offended them was him telling them the truth that he is God. You're going completely blind to what it actually says in the bible, that they thought he was being blasphemous, because you're so much more concerned with the animal sacrifice issue than the plain truth of the matter.

John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

If Jesus issue with the money changers was that they were selling animals to be sacrificed why does he not make it clear that that was his issue with them? Why does he make issue that they had made it into a market, rather than the sacrifices? If his real issue was with that would he not say that the priests and prophets who instituted and upheld the sacrificial system were liars, accuse them and go after them?

I don't like the idea of animal sacrifice at all either but that is how it is and if we rage against it and interpret the bible in a way that is completely at odds with the actual text we're only raging against reality which is completely fruitless.

 

[ebia]

This is discussed in detail in another message. But I wonder how many times Jesus is quoted: "YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN" such as in Luke 5:20. That is what makes him a Messiah to me.

Pronouncing forgiveness is not a Messianic activity at all!

Messiah is short for "God's annointed King". Messianic things are things like saving the people from their enemies, building and/or cleansing the Temple, ruling, representing and summing up the people.

Forgiving sins is a priestly or prophetic (or divine) activity.

 

[drich0150]

This is discussed in detail in another message. But I wonder how many times Jesus is quoted: "YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN" such as in Luke 5:20. That is what makes him a Messiah to me.

What "other post?" I did not read any other posts that touched on all the topics I presented. I asked for chapter and verse from you in a few different places, on a few different things. There was no such response from you on any of those things.

In order to be even considered the "Messiah" He has to be free from sin. Sin now and then is outlined in part by the Mosaic Law. This Law includes a provision for animal sacrifice, as a way to become "clean" before the Lord. You do understand that? This was a requirement up until the Blood of Christ took the burden of sin from man (and his animal sacrifices) Before His death all who sought to be righteous before the Lord needed to sacrifice animals. Their blood pointed to the blood that ultimately had to be split (By Jesus) on our behalf.

After the death and resurrection, you are correct we do not need to sacrifice animals anymore. But, during the life of Jesus He didnot Teach others not to sacrifice animals.. Otherwise I ask you to Show all of us Chapter and verse where these teachings took place.

 

[Robot iMonkey]

So I am the only Christian in the world that thinks that the very concept of animal sacrifice is an evil Satanic practice, no matter who was doing it?
I'm the only one who sees that the religious leaders who were doing this were the exact target of Jesus' anger expressed both physically and verbally?
I'm the only one who can see that the message of baptism and repentance of sin without the practice of animal sacrifice is what made John and Jesus targets and what got them executed?
I'm the only one who can see that the message they preached did have an impact on the Jewish people to the extent that when this temple of Satanic sacrifice was destroyed a few years later, the Jewish people did not rebuild it, and, over time have changed their faith to focus on the teaching of a newer book, the Talmud instead of the Torah so most branches of Judaism do not desire the return of animal sacrifices?
Am I the only one who cares about the message Jesus preached, instead of the message Paul preached in celebration of the execution of Jesus?
Am I the only one who can see that Paul "holding the coats" at the stoning of Steven shows he is the boss over an inquisition style attack squad?
Am I the only one who can see that his practice of dragging followers of Jesus out of their homes to beat the crap out of them shows how strongly he rejected the message Jesus preached?
Am I the only one who can see that this dangerous man was on a road trip to make a hit when Jesus showed him who was really boss?
Am I the only one who reads these things about Paul and what few things he directly says about Jesus and can see he hates the One Whose teachings I desire to follow, except when eulogizing him?
Am I the only one who see that Peter and the other disciples rejected Paul at Antioch?
Am I the only one who sees these things as important?

 

[Insubres]

Yes.

It is quite easy to read what you want into something, and it's nothing new...

I'm the only one who can see that the message they preached did have an impact on the Jewish people to the extent that when this temple of Satanic sacrifice was destroyed a few years later, the Jewish people did not rebuild it, and, over time have changed their faith to focus on the teaching of a newer book, the Talmud instead of the Torah so most branches of Judaism do not desire the return of animal sacrifices?

You're ignoring actual history on these matters. When the temple was destroyed there is no way the Jews could have rebuilt it. Jerusalem was completely destroyed, no one lived there. The Romans then built a new city on top of it called Aelia Capitolina which was inhabited by Roman soldiers. The Romans even changed the name of Iudaea province to Syria Palaestina. Jews for the most part left Judea at this point because they were constantly being harassed and attacked, there is no way they could have rebuilt the temple. It has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of desire to rebuilt it.

And it has only been within the past two centuries, millenia after the Talmud was composed, that any Jewish sects arose that aren't interested in re-establishing the temple. Orthodox Jews still pray for the rebuilding of the temple and resuming of sacrifice, the only groups that don't are Conservative and Reform which have existed for little over a century and started in Germany and America. Some of the latter don't even believe God really exists... To try and present the rejection of concern for the temple or the sacrifices as mainstream Judaism ever since Jesus lived, when it's still not mainstream, and the idea has only been around for about 6% of the time since he lived, is completely unsupportable.

 

[drich0150]

So I am the only Christian in the world that thinks that the very concept of animal sacrifice is an evil Satanic practice, no matter who was doing it?

As it has been explained by several people, animal sacrifices were indeed once a necessary (Commanded by God so it could not be evil) part of the believers life, since the death burial and resurrection of Christ ended the need for animal sacrifice is was no longer necessary. I can't speak for all of the rest of Christianity, only to what was once mandated before, and has since been completed by the blood of Christ.

I'm the only one who sees that the religious leaders who were doing this were the exact target of Jesus' anger expressed both physically and verbally?

All you have to do is show (In it's proper context) where Jesus expresses His anger physically and verbally solely on the bases of animal sacrificing. With all you have to say about the subject it should be easy to point to a bunch of different verses that support all of the different angles you have represented in your arguments.

I'm the only one who can see that the message of baptism and repentance of sin without the practice of animal sacrifice is what made John and Jesus targets and what got them executed?

Jesus willingly went to the cross. He was not executed. All of Humanity could not take the life of Christ if He was not willing to die. that said, He allowed man to play out his own reasonings to bring Him to the cross, but as it is written The Blood of Christ is what takes the sins of the world away. Without this blood sacrifice we would still be sacrificing animals in order to try and obtain righteousness.

I'm the only one who can see that the message they preached did have an impact on the Jewish people to the extent that when this temple of Satanic sacrifice was destroyed a few years later, the Jewish people did not rebuild it, and, over time have changed their faith to focus on the teaching of a newer book, the Talmud instead of the Torah so most branches of Judaism do not desire the return of animal sacrifices?

Apparently you are the only responding that can not see that if God gave the command to sacrifice animals, then that command can not be satanic. Look at the offering Cain and Abel offered to God:
Gen 4:
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

What of the story of Isac and Abraham? What was given Abraham as a last minute sacrifice? Why were all of these animal sacrifices deemed appropriate (By God himself)if they were satanic in nature?

How do you reconcile all of the animal blood that was shed through the commands of God? Doesn't your bible have an old testament? Have you read it?

Am I the only one who cares about the message Jesus preached, instead of the message Paul preached in celebration of the execution of Jesus?

What was that message?

Am I the only one who can see that Paul "holding the coats" at the stoning of Steven shows he is the boss over an inquisition style attack squad?

Actually it would be more correct to say that the inquisition style attack squad is more of a Paulinian style "attack squad" Paul beat them out by about 1500 years or so. Also Paul makes mention of his back ground, so your "revelation" is an excepted part of christian doctrine, so no, "your not the only one" here.

Am I the only one who can see that his practice of dragging followers of Jesus out of their homes to beat the crap out of them shows how strongly he rejected the message Jesus preached?
Am I the only one who can see that this dangerous man was on a road trip to make a hit when Jesus showed him who was really boss?
QUOTE]

Apparently in this instance you are the only one, who stopped reading about the conversion of Paul just before he repented of His sins. Or it should becoming more and more obvious even to you, that you have great difficultly understanding the most basic concept of repentance and forgiveness. If this is not so, then why do you think you are not able to apply those principles where scripture has applied them to Paul?

Am I the only one who see that Peter and the other disciples rejected Paul at Antioch?

Have you read what the disagreement was about? Paul did not agree with Peter's stance on the gentiles. Peter was preaching a gospel heavily influenced by Jewish law and tradition. (starting at Gal 2:11)If Paul had his way, you would have to become a Jew before you could except Christ. Is this what you are advocating? Apparently not if you do not like some of the "satanic/Jew practices."

Am I the only one who sees these things as important?

It is obvious that they are important to you so that you can justify what it is you have decided to pick and choose to believe of Christianity.. For those who are trying to reconcile the whole of scripture with our personal beliefs.. Not so much.

 

[Robot iMonkey]

I'll take that as more complete research than what I have done. Thank you.

And they didn't rebuild this temple elsewhere because....?

 

[drich0150]

And they didn't rebuild this temple elsewhere because....?

Because the site in which the temple stood is what is considered Holy, it is not the temple itself. I don't know how aware you are of the goings on "over there," But as of 691 AD there has been a big golden Dome sitting on the spot where the temple use to sit. The people who think that dome is "holy" will not allow the Jews to erect a temple. but that has not stop the Jews from putting together a team of (Levities) to assemble a (wilderness) temple as described in the OT as soon as they get the go ahead from the governing officials.

So they are ready, willing but as of 5-12-10 not able because the Holy site is not available.