reply to post by GodIsRelative
I think these two passages say enough on the subject of Temples.
The translation that you are quoting is interpretive rather
than literal because both words, bod and temple, are in the singular in the original Greek text.
The word 'you' in ". . . the Holy Spirit, who is in you, . . ." is in the plural.
Paul was saying that the church as a group of people is the temple.
In the second quote, where it says, "But the temple he had spoken of was his body." this was not something known at the time that Jesus said it, while
to everyone who heard it always took it to mean the literal physical temple that he just got through cleansing.
It wasn't until after he was resurrected that his disciples realized that there was another way to understand what he was saying, that it could be a
metaphorical allusion to a future event that he was foretelling.
So it was not Jesus giving a lecture on the nature of temples and bodies, but an example of Jesus' foreknowledge of things that were to happen,
because they were all part of a plan.
. . . where he says "I am the Lord" these are the words of God inside him.
My argument may be
overly complex but it goes something like this:
"The Lord" is a technical term that you see in the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the Old Testament, substituting for the word, YHWH, in
the Hebrew version.
"The Lord" is really an angel who appeared to Moses in a burning bush, saying that "he is" the same person who appeared to the Patriarchs as God.
So to me the correct conclusion is that the actual person, God, never appeared to anyone, but was always a heavenly being who could take on god-like
powers to serve as the executor of God's will, and also the spokesperson for God.
This is vital to the story because this person talking to Moses is exactly the same person those mouth spoke the words of promise to Abraham, and so
was connected directly to it, to the point that he would find it in his own interest as a true representative, to see those promises carried
The big leap in logic in my explanation comes in how I transfer this title in the Greek from this person in the OT, to the person in the NT who seems
to be filling the same role.
The job description and the title remains the same, but the person filling it is different, where Jesus actually has a higher inherent status than the
former holder of that name.
This is suitable because he is representing a higher or better promise in the new covenant.
if we were to truly follow the One Commandment,
then we would automatically follow the rest of the commandments.
I don't see Jesus endorsing any of that.
People asked him questions specifically about the Law so he answered them, about the Law, but that is not endorsing it.
Jesus picked out specific ideas that just happen to be in the Law, to endorse.
edit on 9-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)