Not really. Both temples were destroyed 'for cause.' And 'align with' is not the criteria. If they REALLY wanted to 'align', why not start with His Sabbath? And His 'moedim' (feasts.)
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
On Orthodoxy
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
If they did switch to Sabbath, how many other similarities would you then see?
And if it’s been done exactly that way for 2000 years, then would it be somewhat accurate to describe it as most likely a near carbon copy to 2nd temple worship?
I love history. I’ve been to American civil war battle sites and re-enactments. It’s amazing to see what these men and women may have experienced. The mind imagines.
In my mind, I could easily see Peter and James conducting such liturgical services as apostles/priests and then breaking bread informally and having a Sunday (Saturday evening) potluck with the faithful as they had further bible study and preaching (sort of like a good old southern dinner on the grounds with music and fellowship).
That’s how my mind sees it.
Do you see any liturgical things happening in the upper room as they waited for Pentecost?
When they exited the room, thousands were born into the Kingdom. I don’t see them engaging in any liturgy as they moved forward in ministry.
Good catch. My mind wandered a little too much.
I was thinking post temple 70 AD.
Peter and James would have been dead by then? Likely?
Prior to that, the leaders of the early church would have relied on the temple for that liturgy. After that, synagogue worship would have picked up where that left off. But without a unifying temple, the schism between rabbinical judaism and people of “the way” would have been too fractious. With no synagogues welcoming them...the churches were built, but the temple priestly rites would have continued.
I don’t think the upper room was the liturgical worship portion of their worship that day.
Last edited:
I’m not a high church and liturgy guy. I think the priesthood of the believer as he appropriates himself as a living sacrifice each day is far more important.
I just don’t want us to discount liturgy as automatically something strange, foreign and sinful. I don’t think early Christians would have. They would have been so much closer and comfortable with it and perhaps feeling the necessity of it after having it be a part of their existence and national/cultural identity for centuries in the temple.
I think the liturgy of this church can be powerful if we think that it’s re-enacting the temple rites but now showing that a blood sacrifice is not needed, it’s already been completed. But, as a way of not forgetting it, we reenact it, and substitute bread and wine as Jesus told us to.
I just don’t want us to discount liturgy as automatically something strange, foreign and sinful. I don’t think early Christians would have. They would have been so much closer and comfortable with it and perhaps feeling the necessity of it after having it be a part of their existence and national/cultural identity for centuries in the temple.
I think the liturgy of this church can be powerful if we think that it’s re-enacting the temple rites but now showing that a blood sacrifice is not needed, it’s already been completed. But, as a way of not forgetting it, we reenact it, and substitute bread and wine as Jesus told us to.
Idk.
It seems to me that liturgy was more a form of religion that we were released from. Then later, as the forms of worship that embraced the Spirit wore off, liturgy became the new normal. Because liturgy is easier than walking the Walk.
Back in the day, Moses told the people to take some days, I think 3?, to prepare to meet with Yah on the mountain. They did, but on the appointed day they were scared by the thunder and lightning. They made the choice to have Moses represent them instead.
Forever after the battle has been between being present or being represented. This is part of what Yeshuah conquered for us.
I can’t help but see liturgy as being a re-embracing of religion and a step back from worshipping Him in Spirit.
It seems to me that liturgy was more a form of religion that we were released from. Then later, as the forms of worship that embraced the Spirit wore off, liturgy became the new normal. Because liturgy is easier than walking the Walk.
Back in the day, Moses told the people to take some days, I think 3?, to prepare to meet with Yah on the mountain. They did, but on the appointed day they were scared by the thunder and lightning. They made the choice to have Moses represent them instead.
Forever after the battle has been between being present or being represented. This is part of what Yeshuah conquered for us.
I can’t help but see liturgy as being a re-embracing of religion and a step back from worshipping Him in Spirit.
Well said, and I largely agree. But, there are certainly some prayers (one that Yahushua offered comes to mind) and other 'rote' understandings (another example, the 'Shema' from Deuteronomy chpater 6, that He called the "most important comendment" in Scripture) that I have no problem with, either.
When they become a replacement, or an excuse for making "long-winded prayers" that amount to modern 'virtue-signalling' - then I have an issue. And particularly when they incorporate outright pagan elements.
Well said
While I largely agree in my personal tastes, could a person be both liturgical AND Spirit driven?
We have to remember that much of the ceremonial and liturgical predates literacy.
For those who couldn’t read, the liturgy would serve as visual and tactile inputs to remember spiritual principles.
Our brains are wired first to think in images. Language access isn’t until later in our development. Nobody comes out of the womb reading and speaking. Even first written languages were pictographs.
This is one of the values of good hymns too - they are memorable, so if they contain good theology you remember that.
Which is also the danger of Christian music with bad theology...
Which is also the danger of Christian music with bad theology...
Micah 2:4-7
Then I, the LORD, will rule from Jerusalem as their king forever.” 8 As for you, Jerusalem, the citadel of God’s people, your royal might and power will come back to you again. The kingship will be restored to my precious Jerusalem.
Ezekiel Chapter 40-48 details a 3rd temple. One that is accompanied by the "LORD" living there forever (Ezekiel 43:7), whom I believe will be Yahushua (Jesus) the Messiah (Luke 1:33).
People have done CGI representations - of that 3rd temple - based on what's written in Ezekiel. This is something that gets built after Sukkot is fulfilled, and the re-gathering of the exiles is done. Here's roughly how it will look like:
Another artistic representation of the temple from an aerial view:
Agreed
Do you believe the new temple will have liturgy, or what will it be like?
I don't know how it's going to be. But Yahushua (Jesus) the Messiah (Christ) will be there:
Name of the Father in Heaven (in Hebrew and Paleo Hebrew):
John 20:24-25
Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
26-28
Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Last edited:
I doubt that they have been done the same way for 2,000 years.
I have no inside info. I’m seriously curious. How long then? What’s your best estimate? Pre or post Nicea?