Cactus Game Design Message Boards

In the new tin, is golden cherubim a solomons temple artifact or just a temple artifact?

And, as always when this comes up, I ask for some biblical or scholarly evidence that they existed in any temple other than Solomon's.  Our only evidence is that they were built for Solomon's Temple, and there is actually a lot of support for the concept that they were not made in Z-Temple.  They should only be a Solomon's Temple Artifact, and I'm still trying to see where the basis for the rule is coming from

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Redemption rulings. If Wikipedia references a reliable source you're welcome to site that.

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Redemption rulings. If Wikipedia references a reliable source you're welcome to site that.

Fine then.  If we follow the citations and look into the Mishnah, a component of the Talmud, we find the following in the tractate Yoma:

Section 54a, passages 23-28 (emphasis added)

If we were to say the reference is to the first Sanctuary — but there was no curtain! If, again, the reference be to the second Sanctuary, but there were no Cherubim? — In truth the reference is to the first Sanctuary and as to ‘curtain’ the reference here means the curtain at the entrances, for R. Zera said in the name of Rab: There were thirteen curtains in the Sanctuary, seven facing the seven gates, two [more], one of which was at the entrance to the Hekal, the other at the entrance to the Ulam; two to the debir; two, corresponding to them, in the loft.  R. Aha b. Jacob said: In truth the reference here is to the second Sanctuary, but it had painted Cherubim, as it is written: And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of Cherubim and palm-trees and open flowers, within and without, and he overlaid them with gold fitted upon the graven work.

This passage indicates that the second temple (Z-Temple and specifically Herod's Temple, as this account was oral tradition codified around 200 A.D.) did not have the Golden Cherubim that are described in Solomon's Temple.  Rather, there were carvings of cherubim on the walls that were 'painted' and 'gilded'.  This is a primary source that seems to refute the existence of the Golden Cherubim of Solomon in the later temples and describe the alternate decoration employed.

Further, it should be a burden to show that an artifact was somewhere, rather than that it was not, if we are going to be Biblically accurate in the application of these items and events.

What we've chosen to use as a source is scripture. The Bible says they were designed and placed in Solomon's Temple. It never says they were absent from the Temple when it was restored or rebuilt. The Artifacts that are omitted from Z's and Herod's Temples are specifically known to have not been in those Temples based on scripture.

The problem I still have with this approach is that we have detailed descriptions of Solomon's Temple and its contents in the Bible, but not mention of these components in the other temples.  In order to actually understand the situation of those temples and the worship therein, we have to turn to other primary documents or we cannot say that they contained certain items.  The onus is on the proof of existence, not proof of absence.

Can you move on now and stop touting it every time this question is asked?  Surely you have something better to do.

First, I have asked this only two other times it has come up that I can find (1, 2).  The only responses either added to the question or did not address the issue at hand (and there were two responses).  At no point did an Elder comment on my question.

So, I brought it up 2 times before, no one responded on the real issue, this is the first thread where we have had an actual discussion about it with sources (as far as I know), and this is the first thread an Elder responded in to actually explain anything about the reasoning.  If I missed a post somewhere in the mass of threads on the new cards, I apologize.  However, I really don't see why you have an issue with me asking once again for a response when I haven't gotten one in the past, and I don't see the reason to be condescending about it either.  I'm truly looking for accuracy in how these items are treated, not trolling.

I will debate these topics, but I don't try to reopen things once they are ultimately ruled.  For example, I accept the ruling on David as not being a King of Judah, even though I very much disagree from a scriptural perspective.  Having the discussion is the only way to ensure that everyone is on the same page and to attempt to reach a correct ruling.  We never had a discussion on this before (since we cannot see your side of the forums).

On a side note, if we cannot accept the Talmud (codified oral tradition of Jewish history and heritage) because "[w]hat we've chosen to use as a source is scripture," why can we accept Josephus as a source?  This is a genuine question.  I would accept Josephus as a (largely) veritable source of historical information, particularly surrounding the events of 70 A.D., but his work is not scripture.  It is his own interpretation of events (largely influenced by his Roman station), much as the Talmud is an attempt to preserve the oral tradition as interpreted by the religious leaders left of the Jewish faith.

My position on this question is that we have primary sources indicating that the latter temples lacked certain artifacts (and the originals were lost or destroyed in the first sacking, regardless of any other question).  We have no source indicating that these artifacts were included.  I would put forward that it is evidence that they were in that location that is important, particularly when we have evidence that they were not.  The Elders can come back with a different ruling, and I would accept it even if I disagreed with it.  However, I think that a larger discussion is warranted based on these facts.

Hopefully that was clearer and made more sense regarding why I am posting on this again.

I got herods ruled as Romans without the bible so that's just not accurate.