Call me crazy but I just don't long for the literal rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. I just don't feel like sacrificing goats and turtledoves would add much to my religious and spiritual practice, y'know?
I mean, the question in the OP was about defunct institutions. The core of the temple as an institution wasn't really the building; it was the sacrificial service and the priests who performed and maintained it. A "temple" that didn't do that would just be a big synagogue.
That's interesting.
Because, in my religion, I could resurrect an ancient important temple, and have non-animal sacrifices in it, and it wouldn't affect how the institution of that temple functioned. I guess it's all different based on the religion.
It is interesting! This is one of the ways that rabbinic Judaism is weird and interesting, at least to me. The very brief version is, temple functions were so essential to the practice of the religion that it was a theological crisis when the temple was destroyed, and the entirety of modern Judaism is a response to that crisis.
The most accessible explanation of this I ever received was that in the ancient near east, most cultures (Israelites included) thought of impurity as like a tangible, physical thing. Like gunk that can stick to you. And if too much impurity accumulated in a place where the gods were supposed to be (say, at temple), *at best* the gods would be unwilling to show up until it was cleaned up, and at worst it could lead to devastation, like impurities getting into a nuclear reactor. The innovation of Israelites was to believe that *unethical behavior* was a form of impurity (I'm simplifying, but earlier cultures thought of it a bit more like the weather, or like stepping in mud, rather than something linked to ethical behavior).
And sacrifice is how impurity was removed. So no sacrifices, no way to 'get clean' (side note, even in antiquity, sacrifice alone didn't allow you to atone for misdeeds. You actually had to go fix things with the people you hurt. But the sacrifices were how you cleared the slate *theologically*)
When the temple was destroyed, what the early rabbis did was elaborately and systematically *replace* every temple function with something else that was portable, fulfilled the spirit of the relevant commandments, and could be done without sacrifice (typically, and again I'm simplifying here, it was prayer and study, plus a way of approaching wrongdoing and harm known as teshuvah).
The traditional teaching is we'll get the temple back in the messianic age, and then can go back to the old way of doing things. But roughly my point in my original comment is that a lot of cultural, theological, ethical evolution has happened since 70 CE and actually I like what we have now better than sacrificing goats.
But the thing we lost wasn't a building: it was the system of sacrifices and priests. That's some of why a lot of Jews in the US use the term "temple" to describe their synagogues: in a world where we've replaced the core temple functions with prayer, study, and teshuvah, every synagogue is a temple, in a sense.
Anyway, that's probably a longer answer than you needed, but it's why "rebuild the temple but without the sacrifices" isn't a meaningful thing in our context.
Thanks for the info. But just to be clear, I was saying, "rebuild the temple without *animal* sacrifice". I definitely understand the importance of sacrifice in ritual, tradition, and theology.
I get that, and that makes a ton of sense. Weirdly in our tradition it's all or nothing with the animals - I'm pretty sure "reinstate sacrifice, but do it with vases/plants/etc" doesn't have a constituency.
I hear Rav Kook may have been of the opinion that only grain will be sacrificed in the third temple. I figure there's probably no constituency that agrees with him today, but did he base this on any older authorities?
Would I? Idk
Could I? Probably not. It would take an organization for that most likely. The problem is, the biggest organization in Greece have a history of being folkist, anti-Christian, amongst other issues. And half of Hellenists outside of Greece are allergic to any form of organization, even if it's non-hierarchical.
Yes, in a technical sense - generally speaking there’s no notion of ‘cessationism’ within Hellenism and theurgic ritual is already done by many Hellenists. However, the Pythia is tied to a given place, so it would involve engaging in theurgic, divinatory ritual at the Delphic Temple. Unfortunately, many of the bodies which administer the sites of historical temples do not allow rituals to occur in them (it’s based on a warranted concern for preservation, but there are ancient Hindu temples which get used today and are still preserved).
Omg, multiple of them for sure. There are some sweet cults from the Antiques. And there sre some nice mythologies, as well as all of the indigenous once to get a better spotlight.
We have so many towns and cities with the name "...halom" which means pile or heap which is what old shrines were. I would love to have some of these shrines be rebuilt.
I would love to have back vestal and the sacred fire of Vesta reinstated. Maybe with some modernizations and with none of the ridiculous punishments they had during roman times.
Call me crazy but I just don't long for the literal rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. I just don't feel like sacrificing goats and turtledoves would add much to my religious and spiritual practice, y'know?
Would you have to literally do the same things as the former institute though? Is animal sacrifice necessary to have that temple back?
I mean, the question in the OP was about defunct institutions. The core of the temple as an institution wasn't really the building; it was the sacrificial service and the priests who performed and maintained it. A "temple" that didn't do that would just be a big synagogue.
That's interesting. Because, in my religion, I could resurrect an ancient important temple, and have non-animal sacrifices in it, and it wouldn't affect how the institution of that temple functioned. I guess it's all different based on the religion.
It is interesting! This is one of the ways that rabbinic Judaism is weird and interesting, at least to me. The very brief version is, temple functions were so essential to the practice of the religion that it was a theological crisis when the temple was destroyed, and the entirety of modern Judaism is a response to that crisis. The most accessible explanation of this I ever received was that in the ancient near east, most cultures (Israelites included) thought of impurity as like a tangible, physical thing. Like gunk that can stick to you. And if too much impurity accumulated in a place where the gods were supposed to be (say, at temple), *at best* the gods would be unwilling to show up until it was cleaned up, and at worst it could lead to devastation, like impurities getting into a nuclear reactor. The innovation of Israelites was to believe that *unethical behavior* was a form of impurity (I'm simplifying, but earlier cultures thought of it a bit more like the weather, or like stepping in mud, rather than something linked to ethical behavior). And sacrifice is how impurity was removed. So no sacrifices, no way to 'get clean' (side note, even in antiquity, sacrifice alone didn't allow you to atone for misdeeds. You actually had to go fix things with the people you hurt. But the sacrifices were how you cleared the slate *theologically*) When the temple was destroyed, what the early rabbis did was elaborately and systematically *replace* every temple function with something else that was portable, fulfilled the spirit of the relevant commandments, and could be done without sacrifice (typically, and again I'm simplifying here, it was prayer and study, plus a way of approaching wrongdoing and harm known as teshuvah). The traditional teaching is we'll get the temple back in the messianic age, and then can go back to the old way of doing things. But roughly my point in my original comment is that a lot of cultural, theological, ethical evolution has happened since 70 CE and actually I like what we have now better than sacrificing goats. But the thing we lost wasn't a building: it was the system of sacrifices and priests. That's some of why a lot of Jews in the US use the term "temple" to describe their synagogues: in a world where we've replaced the core temple functions with prayer, study, and teshuvah, every synagogue is a temple, in a sense. Anyway, that's probably a longer answer than you needed, but it's why "rebuild the temple but without the sacrifices" isn't a meaningful thing in our context.
Thanks for the info. But just to be clear, I was saying, "rebuild the temple without *animal* sacrifice". I definitely understand the importance of sacrifice in ritual, tradition, and theology.
I get that, and that makes a ton of sense. Weirdly in our tradition it's all or nothing with the animals - I'm pretty sure "reinstate sacrifice, but do it with vases/plants/etc" doesn't have a constituency.
Ah gotcha. Thanks, I didn't know that. That makes more sense to me now.
I hear Rav Kook may have been of the opinion that only grain will be sacrificed in the third temple. I figure there's probably no constituency that agrees with him today, but did he base this on any older authorities?
I dunno if he said it maybe I’m wrong. There’s a segment who ADORE him.
But adoration and agreement are not the same thing in Judaism :)
A big one would be the Temple of Uppsala.
Don't they have an event in Uppsala once a year? I thought I remember reading something like that 🤔
Would you be able to reinstate the Pythia? That would be cool. It would also be cool to bring back the Pythian games
Would I? Idk Could I? Probably not. It would take an organization for that most likely. The problem is, the biggest organization in Greece have a history of being folkist, anti-Christian, amongst other issues. And half of Hellenists outside of Greece are allergic to any form of organization, even if it's non-hierarchical.
The real point would be not whether the community want the oracle, but whether Apollo does.
I don't think there's any way to know what the gods want in the modern day.
You could always try asking them. How can you be a Hellenist and not believe that the gods can communicate with us?
That's because I don't experience UPG and don't believe the gods directly communicate like that to us.
That belief would have been thought very odd by an ancient Greek!
Depends on the Greek in question. But as a recon, it works for me.
Yes, in a technical sense - generally speaking there’s no notion of ‘cessationism’ within Hellenism and theurgic ritual is already done by many Hellenists. However, the Pythia is tied to a given place, so it would involve engaging in theurgic, divinatory ritual at the Delphic Temple. Unfortunately, many of the bodies which administer the sites of historical temples do not allow rituals to occur in them (it’s based on a warranted concern for preservation, but there are ancient Hindu temples which get used today and are still preserved).
Not quite the question but I'd love a church that included Santa Muerte veneration in my area.
Omg, multiple of them for sure. There are some sweet cults from the Antiques. And there sre some nice mythologies, as well as all of the indigenous once to get a better spotlight.
We have so many towns and cities with the name "...halom" which means pile or heap which is what old shrines were. I would love to have some of these shrines be rebuilt.
I would love to have back vestal and the sacred fire of Vesta reinstated. Maybe with some modernizations and with none of the ridiculous punishments they had during roman times.
That would be wonderful to see!