Did Jesus abolish the temple priesthood at his death????

by Crazyguy 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • blondie
    (Daniel 9:27) 27 “And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.. . .

    That has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus at all. It relates to a period about 200 years earlier. It was only later co-opted by Christians as a so-called 'messianic prophecy' about 'Jesus'.


    But jws do believe it does and he is going to be talking to jws...must be prepared to discussion their viewpoint

    (Just remember reporting what jws believe does not mean I personally support it)

  • tec

    John 4:21-24

    Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.'

    Peace to you,


  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    Paul stated that the priesthood was "changed." If there were no sacrifices there would be no need for temple priests.

    That said, the priesthood may have been changed so that the duties of priest were altered to a Christian angle, such as baptizing and preaching. Jesus was the consumate high priest after the order of Melchizedek, but the thing is, we simply don't know the Christian priesthood structure. They left no records. A lot of people think the Bible is a church handbook. It's not. It's woefully incomplete. It doesn't tell us anything about priesthood, church offices, what they do, what authority they possessed, how to do ordinances like baptism, how to confer the Holy Spirit on people and who can do it or how long office terms run. Are they temporary or permanent? Paying or non-paying? We know they had to be called and ordained, but that's it. We don't even know how to ordain or who may ordain, if anyone.

    If you want to know about the priesthood and the temple, I recommend Dr. Margaret Barker, a gifted Methodist scholar who has written extensively on the topic. (See, for example, Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy.) She has a number of other books available through Amazon.


  • anonymouz

    The typical temple and priesthood follows the Christ pattern of a changed nature, thus the Levitical version and physical temple is abandoned:

    (Hebrews 7:11-17) If, then, perfection were really through the Levitical priesthood, (for with it as a feature the people were given the Law,) what further need would there be for another priest to arise according to the manner of Melchizedek and not said to be according to the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For the man respecting whom these things are said has been a member of another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is quite plain that our Lord has sprung up out of Judah, a tribe about which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15 And it is still more abundantly clear that with a similarity to Melchizedek there arises another priest, 16 who has become such, not according to the law of a commandment depending upon the flesh, but according to the power of an indestructible life, 17 for in witness it is said: “You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.”

    Meaning AFTER Christ's death, empowered in effect at his death, the new sacrificial entity as well. (Heb7-10)

    It's an immortal King-Priest concept and reality now.


    But for JW argument sake, JWs now have a GB led priesthood as sole temple officials as per that FDS = GB abomination and it's extension to all anointed types and anti-types. In effect the GB has demolished the whole religious basis of JWs between the lines. (WT 7/15/13). In effect "the body of the Christ" is meaningless to the GB as they now fully are "lifting themselves over everyone", and I mean EVERYONE. (2Thess2:1-4 modern manifestation).

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    Based on Dr. Barker's book, referenced above, dismissing the need of the temple altogether may be a bit premature. The ancient Jews suffered from the same malady that the Jehovah's Witnesses now suffer from. Some of the more political, zealous Jews and Christians were convinced that the day of deliverance was nigh when the Romans attacked Jerusalem. Although the apostles had evacuated the Christians under their influence, some of the more radical ones who believed that God would not abandon his people and his temple remained. According to Barker, when the Romans began lobbing perfect white stones over the city's embankments, the recalitrant Jews thought the stones were the supernatural hail that was to precede the presence of God. At first they shouted, "The Son is coming!" But when God failed to make his appearance, they actually hurled insults at the Lord because he delayed his coming.

    She writes:

    Thus, they were insulting God, himself, the great Yhwh. Not the Father, but the Son. They knew the concept of Armageddon, and that it would occur during an assault against Jerusalem by an unholy military force. Like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, they couldn't believe that what they had promised would happen wasn't happening.

    But were the Christians finished with the temple? What of the 40 days Jesus had spent with the apostles following his resurrection? He taught them the "mysteries" of the Kingdom, a secret tradition that Barker indicates was never written down. Again, according to Barker:

    And she indicates that part of this secret tradition may have found its way into the early liturgies of the Christian church. The problem, as I see it, is that by then the apostles were gone and no one else really knew for certain which of all the alleged teachings were real and which were not. But churchmen like Clement knew enough, apparently, that he marvelled how anyone could be an atheist after they "learned the divine mysteries" from the Father's "only begotten Son." In describing the reestablishment of the churches in Constantine's time, Eusebius, she notes, describes their reestablishment to:

    That "unbroken tradition" in the temple concept indicated that the early Christians and Jews both incorporated "secret traditions" into their temple worship, and that some may have slipped into the liturgies of the early Christian church.

    Much in the ancient church was lost when the apostles closed their eyes in death. What we have now is what was agreed upon by people who weren't there when these doctrines and traditions were established.


  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Excuse the sloppiness of my recent posts. My phone is no substitue for my computer screen.

    I don't believe all the miracles that accompanied Jesus' death. A faith community that has already morphed into a nonJewish cult is writiing these gospels. Miracles add legitimacy. It reminds me of Cecil B. DeMille. The temple curtain renting into two in the Holy of Holies had maximum visual impact for me. If I were the high priests and the temple curtain split as the time of Jesus' death, I would freak out. After I calmed down and emerged from hiding, I would decide to be a follower of Jesus.

    If the curtain split, Jewish sources would report it. I also expect the Romans would be impressed.

    The same is true of Lazarus being raised from the dead which The Last Temptation of
    analyzes in a fairly complex way. Lazarus would be half rotted. Who could stand to be near the decaying flesh and maggots? If I recall correctly, the book and film show Lazarus an outcast. Zealots murder him. Jesus does not raise him again.

    Sometimes we have to put on our thinking caps. Yet, unlike Cofty, I do believe these vignettes stand for larger truths. These miracles are a physical impossibility. God must work within natural laws. Jesus never heals a decapitated person. Do I understand all these accounts? Hell, no. I do believe earnestly that they may have value if we realize they never happened as literal truth. I don't believe they were written to be read as actual truth. Call them literary genres.

    The first generations could not believe them as truth. They were witnesses. Perhaps it took many generations to be divorce from context. Medieval art is interesting. I personally don't like it. Each flower, tree, sapling, animals is a symbol for something else. Since I don't have the code, I have no idea what an oak leaf or maple tree meant. The Cloisters Museum in New York has the Unicorn tapestries. It takes hours to learn all the stories about particular flowers, maidens, unicorns, etc. None of which are Biblical but during the Middle Ages all viewers would know the code. I vastly prefer the Renaissance.

Share this