Ryan H said:
:Yes. But the allegorical meaning suggested by Scripture is not the same one you suggest here. The allegory of the veil being torn has to do with God's
place among the people, that the divide between God and humanity has broken. It is not an allegory of human components.
:This is wrong-headed because Scripture never lays out this allegory, and we run into dangerous territory when we start crafting our own allegorical interpretations,
I hadn't mentioned in what I had wrote, that the veil was related to human components, I merely saying that the veil being ripped in two had an allegorical purpose,
which here you've have shown that you agree with.
But the fact of it is...... the veil does represent a human component, Christ's flesh.
Hebrews 10: 19 .....since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the
veil, that is through his flesh,.......
So here Paul points directly at a part of the temple as an allegory for Christ's flesh, which is a human component.
Also there is ... Jn. 2:19, 21
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up… But he spake of the temple of his body
Likewise in first Corinthians 3: 16 - 17
Are you not aware that you are
a temple of God, and the Spirit of God is making it's home in you.
The ancients were aware of at least some of the meanings and functions of the temple. Temples were integrated
into ancient cultures, especially, of course with the Jews.
If Jesus was to tell someone that they were the temple in which the Spirit dwells, when the Spirit dwelled within the Hebrew temple
for most of their history, they would have considered that statement to be significant; as should we. The very fact that the Spirit
dwelled physically inside the ark in the Holy of Holies of the Hebrew temple, and is then mentioned to dwell physically inside of us (being the temple), is
every indication that the temple is a representation of the human person. It's also clear that components of the temple can represent components
of the human body because the Bible says that the veil represents Christ's flesh, and it was well known that the Holy Spirit dwelled inside the inner
chamber of the three chamber temple. Therefore the allegory was clearly there, that the Holy Spirit dwells in the inner chamber of the Christian.
So in this light it is not wrong headed to think that the temple allegory has human significance.
When God had them set up the temple he knew what he was doing. Througout the centuries Christians have seen the temple as representing everything
from the human body, to giving us insights into the cosmos. These are insights from Christians that have existed long before I've come on the scene.
My understanding is that the Jews would have seen the temple as, at least in part, representing cosmic things. For example the prophets had cosmic
visions which had temple type imagery to them.
If Jesus said that we are the temple of Cod, knowing full well the incredible significance of the temple to the ancient mind, and also knowing that
God had given the ancients specific instructions as to the building of the temple with it's allegorical meanings, then it is not an unbearably unreasonable
stretch to think that he is pointing to something that can teach us about the human person, especially when one sees that the veil represented Christ's
flesh (a human component), all along, in this design of the temple.
: it falls apart because it cannot express the "same essence"/"different persons" element that is the central truth about the trinity.
All it is different components centered around the number three.
I wasn't trying to express the same essence different persons element...... I was merely trying to say that if we are made in the image
of God, and God is trinitarian, then it isn't fair to imply that Christian's who believe that the human has three parts are off of their rocker.
I wasn't trying to explain the mystery of it all, like in the apple example.
But in working with what you've said. If the human being has two interconnected parts (soul and body) and is essentially of one essence then
why would it be a big stretch to think that the human being has three parts and is of one essence.
:Because Paul does not offer a robust trinitarian theology. It's just not there. It's the fallacy of imposing later theological structures onto the early and developing theology of Paul.
Whose to say that Paul's theology was developing in this area, just because he doesn't often mention the human person in three components together, doesn't mean that he didn't understand this.
Actually, many would argue that how he uses the words Spirit, and Soul, in his writings are significant in their context, touching on different components of the human.
The Greek words for Spirit and Soul have very different meanings. As a matter of fact when I looked into their meanings in my Concordance I found this.
psuch e - soul - the sensation resulting from the combination of an organic body with breath, or spirit.
Also even if Paul didn't
understand this, that doesn't mean that the temple allegory wasn't still there, or planned, in God's design of the temple.
:especially when we use them as theological foundations, but, in addition, because the temple can't be reduced to just three parts.
There are three main parts to the temple that are very significant. Not everybody could enter into these courts in the temples, and in the inner courts only
those that had been cleansed. The understanding of the three main courts was significant to the Jewish life, and religion.
:Three flimsy points of reference still makes for a flimsy doctrine.
I stumbled across this teaching from a man with a Syrian Orthodox influence, which is a very different tradition than I have walked in.
Where he says this.
"Very often the spirit and the soul are confused because of their close affinity and characteristics. However Hebrews 4:12 says, "for the word of
God is living and active, sharper than any two edged sword piercing to the division of soul and spirit; of joints and marrow; discerning the
thoughts and intentions of the heart." Thus soul and spirit are distinct entities as the joint and marrow are......."http://www.scribd.co...-Concept-of-Man
(On page 25 he touches on the temple layout, with it's courts)
When Paul was using the words joints and marrow he was reinforcing his idea of the division of soul and spirit, using very specific biological terms.
I don't believe that this was waxing poetic.
I just don't think that this is a flimsy reference.
I've now defended myself, and am most likely not going to have many more responses along this line of thought. It's two much of a rabbit trail for me,
at the moment.
I think you and I are best off to agree to disagree on this....... In all things charity.
Edited by Attica, 10 May 2011 - 03:40 PM.