Was God still dwelling in the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple after Pentecost?

[midori]

and it continues on for a bit along those lines.

However, I’m not finding anything about the Second Temple Lacking Things in Yoma 22b, so I don’t know how reliable this source is.

 

[steve-b]

veil

Seriously, God is a spirit, he doesn’t dwell in any abode made by human hands and never did.

However humans can set aside (ie make them holy) objects or places which are reserved only for divine use.

So God was never objectively there in the sense you seem to be using.

It seems that with the beginning of Christianity Christians no longer considered the Temple to be as important as Jews did. In fact the holiest dwelling was considered a soul filled with grace not the physical temple. Or the Eucharistic species.

This I believe is the theological meaning of the veil legend.

Re: the ripping of the veil

Consider the following,

Excerpt

….“St. Matthew, a Jew writing for a Jewish Christian audience, and St. Mark, possibly a Jew but also traditionally believed to have recorded St. Peter’s memories, both place the tearing of the Temple veil immediately after Jesus’ death. Only St. Luke—probably a Gentile disciple of St. Paul, writing for a Gentile Christian audience—places the tearing of the veil before Jesus’ death, perhaps not realizing the significance of the timing. St. John does not mention the incident, perhaps because it was already well-known, or perhaps because it seemed to him to be of lesser importance by the time he wrote his Gospel (well after A.D. 70, which was about the time the formal split between Christians and Jews began).
Of course, Christians have long attached other meanings to the rending of the Temple veil—some of which are downright anti-Semitic. In researching this blog post, I found theories that the torn veil symbolized everything from the end of the Old Covenant, to the repudiation of the Jewish people, to the end of any need for human intercession with God, to the rending of Christ himself!..…

For the complete article: The Ripping of the Veil | Catholic Answers

 

[steve-b]

I believe Christianity has a purer understanding of the nature of “Shekina” than allegedly Jewish understandings enunciated on this thread which still retain a hint of idolatry and "physicalism".

Indeed many Christians still retain this hint of idolatry and “physicalism” even in their treatment of the Eucharist today - and the legends of the Grail yesterday.

Physicalism as in this? Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
joline:

It is not at all a coincidence that John who emphasises the indwelling of the HS in the soul as in a temple and the bread of life … says nothing about the temple veil.

As the article pointed out

" …St. John does not mention the incident, ( tearing of the veil) perhaps because it was already well-known, or perhaps because it seemed to him to be of lesser importance by the time he wrote his Gospel (well after A.D. 70, which was about the time the formal split between Christians and Jews began" …

 

[steve-b]

https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=2ahUKEwiG6LTervLcAhWNdd4KHTLGB68QFjALegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcouncilonchristianunity.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2FOGara-paper-2005-Word.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1f50c01g1CH2p8Hqqf_mw1

Moloney cites the epiclesis, which prays that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ,
as evidence of the widespread and ancient character of this belief. 54 But by the ninth
century, Paschase Radbert had developed a crudely realistic view of this change in the
bread and wine, as though it were a physical or material change. Two centuries later,
Berengar presented a symbolic understanding of the eucharist in which the gifts may be
called the body and blood of Christ but in fact remain bread and wine. These positions
stimulated controversies in their day, of course, but they also motivated theologians to try
to explain the change in the eucharist more adequately. This was made more important
by some superstitious practices of eucharistic piety, which saw faithful people claiming
to see bleeding hosts or attempting to attend as many eucharistic consecrations as
possible in one day to increase their share of grace. In addition, while reception of
communion among the faithful became less frequent, devotion to the Blessed Sacrament
outside the celebration of eucharist began to grow through exposition, processions,
devotional prayers before the tabernacle where the reserved sacrament was kept, and
eventually benediction.
Against superstitious practices and against both physicalist and reductionist-symbolic
interpretations, theologians began to use the term “transubstantiation.” The meaning of
this term was brought to some maturity by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. It
is important to remember that Aquinas used the idea of transubstantiation as a means to
counter superstition and to correct crude physicalist views of the eucharist, while
maintaining an affirmation of the change inherited from the tradition and manifested by
the epicletic prayer.

I was in Lanciano Italy in 99.

• Longinus was said to have been born in Anaxum, but the name of the town was changed to Lanciano , so named after the spear with which he pierced Jesus. The Italian word for spear is Lancia.
• In the year 700, a priest was saying mass. Bottom line, He didn’t believe in what he was doing. So Jesus stepped in. I had to go see the miracle. https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-miracle-of-lanciano.html. Here we are in 2018, and the blood and tissue are still in tact 1300 years later.