ECT Will there be a temple, to worship the one true God, in the future?

[Wick Stick]

Shalom.

I do believe that God has wanted there to be a temple. The first temple was the one that Solomon built. The tabernacle was in the wilderness. Do you understand these basics? Do you understand about the tabernacle in the wilderness? It came first. The history of the tabernacle to the first temple is recorded in the Bible. Start with the Torah. Then you have the Prophets and the Writings. Then Matthew through Revelation.

Shalom.

Jacob

Shalom, Jacob.

I'm not quite a novice at this.

The Lord has established the temple He wanted already. He didn't make it out of bricks and mortar. Instead He made it out of people - the "living stones" Peter talks about in his epistle. "Know ye not, that your bodies are the temple?" says Paul. The mystery of Christ in us, the Godhead dwelling in our midst, is the central theme of Scripture.

Solomon's temple was something God allowed, and used as a type. It was the diorama showing forth the design, on a vastly smaller and less grandiose scale.

Why would you want to go back to the diorama, when we have the temple here already which is built by God's hands, rather than man's?

 

[Interplanner]

Shalom, Jacob.

I'm not quite a novice at this.

The Lord has established the temple He wanted already. He didn't make it out of bricks and mortar. Instead He made it out of people - the "living stones" Peter talks about in his epistle. "Know ye not, that your bodies are the temple?" says Paul. The mystery of Christ in us, the Godhead dwelling in our midst, is the central theme of Scripture.

Solomon's temple was something God allowed, and used as a type. It was the diorama showing forth the design, on a vastly smaller and less grandiose scale.

Why would you want to go back to the diorama, when we have the temple here already which is built by God's hands, rather than man's?

Exactly.

 

[Danoh]

Exactly.

Lol you have just found agreement with a Gentile who converted to Judaism.

Will you also be converting soon?

 

[Interplanner]

2P2P has no concept of the shadow vs reality progression taught by the NT in Col and Heb. Meaning: I have never heard them explain it on their own.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

2P2P has no concept of the shadow vs reality progression taught by the NT in Col and Heb. Meaning: I have never heard them explain it on their own.

:chuckle:

 

[Nick M]

:chuckle:

Rulz said something about shadow types.

When he wasnt babbling on about metaphysics, Star Trek vs Star Wars, and other things I don't understand.

 

[Right Divider]

2P2P has no concept of the shadow vs reality progression taught by the NT in Col and Heb. Meaning: I have never heard them explain it on their own.

Col 2:16-17 (KJV)​

(2:16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: (2:17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. ​

You need to believe the Bible. Paul distinguishes between the things which ARE TO COME and the BODY OF CHRIST.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Col 2:16-17 (KJV)​

(2:16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: (2:17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. ​

You need to believe the Bible. Paul distinguishes between the things which ARE TO COME and the BODY OF CHRIST.

You just don't understand "the Greek", RD.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Rulz said something about shadow types.

When he wasnt babbling on about metaphysics, Star Trek vs Star Wars, and other things I don't understand.

I wonder how initial justification ties in...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

2P2P has no concept of the shadow vs reality progression taught by the NT in Col and Heb. Meaning: I have never heard them explain it on their own.

Explain the shadow vs reality progression of this:


1 Passover
2 Unleavened Bread
3 First Fruits
4 Pentecost

5 Trumpets
6 Atonement
7 Tabernacles

Why are Passover and Atonement months apart?
How did Atonement take place before Pentecost (as you claim)?

 

[Interplanner]

Col 2:16-17 (KJV)​

(2:16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: (2:17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. ​

You need to believe the Bible. Paul distinguishes between the things which ARE TO COME and the BODY OF CHRIST.

That is not the sense, RD. Those rules were the shadow of what was to come in Christ. See the correct tense in the NIV. Meanwhile, the reality is found (present) in Christ. The expression is simply 'the coming things' but that of course meant coming after those in the Law. Likewise the same passages in Hebrews that say they are now here, in Christ, of course. I don't see any place where your club gets that concept as it should. Heb 8:19, 22, 24, 8:1, 9:11 (I can get the mss. breakdown for you), 9:24.

The whole idea anyway is that this was the end of the ages (Daniels' periods?) when it was going to be here, 9:26.

 

[Interplanner]

RD, you should test out your theories with the questions at the seder thread.

 

[Nick M]

I wonder how initial justification ties in...

A bit like initial original sin.

 

[Interplanner]

Col 2:16-17 (KJV)​

(2:16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: (2:17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. ​

You need to believe the Bible. Paul distinguishes between the things which ARE TO COME and the BODY OF CHRIST.

btw, he didn't mean the church there. He meant the things Christ accomplished are what justifies people from their sins, not the powerless 'rules.' There is a further parallel to Hebrews here when it quotes the Psalm about 'sacrifices you have not desire / but a body you have prepared for me' which Hebrews says is Christ's.

Try to demonstrate what you think instead of insisting you have the only knowledge of it.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

btw, he didn't mean the church there. He meant the things Christ accomplished are what justifies people from their sins, not the powerless 'rules.'

Try to demonstrate what you think instead of insisting you have the only knowledge of it.

:chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Try to demonstrate what you think instead of insisting you have the only knowledge of it.

The irony...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

See the correct tense in the NIV.

Do you know the tenses better than the team of KJB translators?

 

[Right Divider]

btw, he didn't mean the church there. He meant the things Christ accomplished are what justifies people from their sins, not the powerless 'rules.' There is a further parallel to Hebrews here when it quotes the Psalm about 'sacrifices you have not desire / but a body you have prepared for me' which Hebrews says is Christ's.

Try to demonstrate what you think instead of insisting you have the only knowledge of it.

:french:

 

[intojoy]

Shalom. I believe you meant, your approach was flawed. How so? What do you say here?

Shalom.

Jacob

You have to be born again in order to approach and understand the scriptures.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Interplanner]

:french:

There is no preoccupation with the 2nd coming in the Colossian passage. It is plainly a contrast of the 'weak and miserable principles of the law' and the Gospel (many commentaries are flawed on the earlier term 'philosophy' that is vain. Paul meant the neo-Judaism that was going on. He did not mean Ovid or Ptolemy active at the time. The term 'philosophia' was regularly used, for ex., by Josephus when listing the Pharisees, Sadducees, zealots and Essenes in the 1st century).

Paul meant the benefits of Christ had come in Christ, with a minority of things coming later.