Jesus and his apostles were all Jewish so they were bound by law to render acceptable worship according to God's law at the temple or at a synagogue.
When a person is properly baptized, they become "Jewish" in the eyes of God. They are bound to him just as much as any Jew. Did you not know that baptism was a Jewish ordinance? God can indeed raise up out of these rocks children to Abraham.
It wasn't to offer sacrifices or to follow the ceremonial laws.
“Here’s what we want you to do. We have four men here who have completed their vow. Go with them to the Temple and join them in the purification ceremony, paying for them to have their heads ritually shaved.
Then everyone will know that the rumors are all false and that you yourself observe the Jewish laws.
“As for the Gentile believers, they should do what we already told them in a letter: They should abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.”
So Paul went to the Temple the next day with the other men. They had already started the purification ritual, so he publicly announced the date when their vows would end and sacrifices would be offered for each of them.
The seven days were almost ended when some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul in the Temple and roused a mob against him. They grabbed him, yelling, “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who preaches
against our people everywhere and tells everybody to disobey the Jewish laws. He speaks against the Temple—and even defiles this holy place by bringing in Gentiles.
(Acts 21:23-28)
The real temple was still standing...it was indestructible.
The Temple at Jerusalem was the real temple. Jesus even recognized it as still the House of the Lord, when he chased out the money changers. No where in the bible is it stated that the Temple was unnecessary. In fact, the scripture you quoted would be superfluous if the Temple was unnecessary. You are making your own religion out of broadcloth.
The Christians met for instruction and worship in people's homes when it became too dangerous to go to the temple.
The Temple was not a church. The Jews had churches. They called them synagogues. They met and worshiped in synagogues. The Temple was special. The Temple was sacred ground. None of the synagogues bore the name "The House of the Lord".
If it is God's word, then it was by his inspiration that it was written and by his spirit that it was preserved.
Which of all the hundreds of different bibles is the one that has been preserved? Not one autograph exists. The word has not been preserved. Mankind has done the best they can to preserve sacred verse, but has never come to any agreement on which books are sacred verse, or which version of which books is the most accurate. One could as easily - and perhaps more correctly - say that the Gospel of Phillip was preserved. Rather than be burned, it was buried to preserve it against those who would destroy sacred writ.
Your thinking would leave you wide open to the idea that more scripture would be added later....that wasn't what Paul indicated at Gal 1:6-9.
So then you reject all the New Testament that was written after Galatians? Actually the verse doesn't say anything about God stopping his inspiration, or the end of sacred writ.
"Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you."
The real question is who is teaching the "different kind of good news". The same "kind" of good news could be taught without a limit to the number of books. In fact, Mark, Luke and John all teach the same "kind" of good news mentioned by Matthew.
Again, you are making up your own religion out of broadcloth. The scriptures don't say what you think they say. They don't support a closed canon.
“I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll
It is referring to the Book of Revelations - the prophecy on one particular scroll. The author is worried that people will change it. He doesn't believe that God will preserve it. The injunction doesn't apply to any other scroll, or to any group of such scrolls.
Would you mind backing up that statement from the Bible? You can't possibly mean a new set of scriptures that is accepted by only one religious denomination in a world of Christians...can you?
Absolutely! We call it the New Testament, all of which was written after Jesus ascended. Jesus believed in modern prophets (John the Baptist, etc.), and although he never said that his words should be added to the Old Testament, his followers certainly believed that they belonged, and were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Are you really going to argue that Jesus didn't believe in an open and expanding canon of scripture? Should we take the New Testament out of the Bible? Perish the thought.
Or perhaps you don't believe he is talking about the LDS church.
I absolutely know he wasn't talking about the LDS faith. I don't think the Corinthians were having a problem with Mormons. Greek philosophers and Sadducees were among the greatest opponents of Paul's Christianity. The Sadducees didn't believe in a physical resurrection, because Moses never mentioned it. The Greeks and Romans believed that matter was evil, and therefore they too didn't believe in a physical resurrection. Paul was constantly preaching how Jesus was physically resurrected, not unlike a modern prophet that I know of.
The Jews lost their temple. Christians never had an earthly one because their priesthood was not earthly.
There you go - making up your own religion again. The priesthood is the authority to represent God. All true prophets and apostles had that authority. Do you think that the apostles taught without authority? Do you think that they baptized without authority? Some have argued that Jesus was the final High Priest, but the Didache, arguably the oldest manual of Christian practice, states that the prophets were High Priests. 1 Clement specifically mentions High Priests, Priests, and Levites in the 1st century Christian church. Jesus himself promised to send us prophets and apostles. Prophets and apostles are the foundation of Christ's church.
"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;…" (Ephesians 4:11,12)
"Here are some of the parts God has appointed for the church: first are apostles, second are prophets, third are teachers,
then those who do miracles, those who have the gift of healing, those who can help others, those who have the gift of leadership,
those who speak in unknown languages." (1 Corinthians 12:28)
God appointed apostles, prophets and teachers in his church. They spoke with his authority. They bore his priesthood.
There is a reason why the Bible canon finishes at Revelation.
Yes, but it isn't what you think it is. Bishop Athanasius, about 350 AD., insisted that the Book of Revelations be included with the Bible. His predecessor was against it. Bishop Athanasius was largely responsible for deciding which books should be included in a New Testament. He rejected many as heresy. Revelations wasn't a testament, like Matthew, Mark Luke and John, nor was it a letter like Paul's letter to the Romans; it was placed last in a category by itself.
For a fact, Christianity had no formal rituals or "ordinances".
That is a very strange assertion. Baptism isn't a ritual? It isn't an ordinance? What possible definition could support such a statement? A ritual is a religious rite, and a rite is a ceremonial act, according to Dictionary.com. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us with your own definition that excludes baptism.
The Gospel of Phillip, discovered at Nag Hammadi, dates to the early 2nd century, older than some of our New Testament books. It mentions several sacraments practiced by Christians of the day. By what authority do you declare them false?
What other ordinances do you believe there are? From the Bible please.
Which bible? Any Bible? The Gospel of Phillip was in someone's bible. He mentions "The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber." These aren't pagan ceremonies. They are distinctly and uniquely Judeo/Christian. Phillip lists 5 ordinances or mysteries. A mystery, or mustérion in the Greek, is a secret doctrine, or a doctrine only known by revelation.
http://biblehub.com/greek/3466.htm It has another meaning; a mustérion is a drama or enactment. In baptism, we enact being buried, and then resurrected. In the Eucharist, we enact eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. Paul tells us that he was a keeper of the mysteries, and refused to teach them to the Corinthians, even though they had been members for years. I don't think he was talking about baptism. The Corinthians had already been baptized.
The Catholic and Protestant bibles don't tell us what these mysteries of Paul were, and he never writes about them except obliquely. Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem wrote much more about the mysteries, but that was 300 years later. If you read the article in Wikipedia on "Chrism", you can find Cyril's comments on this early Christian sacrament.
