The "house of God"

[praise_yeshua]

Since when does something have to be in biblical canon to be historically accurate?

It goes to reliability.

Well, it had already been prophesied so I doubt He was a bit surprised, much less 'mad'...

Prophesied where? The temple of Solomon was destroyed long before the temple Jesus talked about.

In the past:

Now when Solomon had finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD had filled the LORD?S house (2 Chronicles 7:1-2).

In the future:

Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH! From his place he shall branch out, and he shall build the temple of the Lord [YEHOVAH]. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; so he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both [YEHOVAH God AND the Messiah] (Zechariah 6:12-13).

So....you do see as an allusion? Isn't what you just described an allusion? What God does.... He does forever.

Why do you list the chapter and not the verse? Because it isn't there.

Sure it is. It the first verse.

He made a comment then quoted the prophet. His statement about not dwelling in temples was NOT a part of the prophet's quotation.

Well... they sure killed Stephen for nothing.... They should have just said..... its not there....

The prophet talks of the impossibility of making a house for God. Its very clear. You're just ignoring it...

List of what? People I disagree with? It would be easier to list the people I do agree with: none. Sometimes I even contradict myself.

If I recall correctly, you disagree with Peter's decision to make Mathias the 12th Apostle and claimed he took Scripture out of context to do so. So you disagree with a Jesus-appointed Apostle whereas I disagree with a martyr. Seems we both make relative practice in judgements.

Stephen was empowered by the Spirit of God. Peter didn't have the Spirit of God when he made his decision. Big difference.

You have yet to prove that from Isaiah's own words.

Thus says the LORD: ?Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?

All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD.

Pay attention next time.

No argument from me. He indwelt Jesus while on earth and the Temple at the same time. He is pretty good at being in more than one place at a time.

I get it. What the Father has to say about it doesn't matter? There is a difference between what you're describing and "being with someone". Its more than just "being there". Its fellowship. Kinsmanship

Again, depends on the context.

The purpose is the context. An allusion.... intends more than just what's mentioned.

ITs very clear from the Scriptures that God's intent in dwelling among his own had very little to do with something built by man.

 

[T-Bone]

Don't intend to get into an argument, but the context of the phrase does make all the difference.  Ultimately we know that no building can contain God, nor does He need a building to dwell in...but at the same time Jesus said,

John 2:16 (NKJV)

16 And He said to those who sold doves, ?Take these things away! Do not make My Father?s house a house of merchandise!?

In context He uses the phrase "Father's house" in reference to the physical Temple.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Don't intend to get into an argument, but the context of the phrase does make all the difference.  Ultimately we know that no building can contain God, nor does He need a building to dwell in...but at the same time Jesus said,

John 2:16 (NKJV)

16 And He said to those who sold doves, ?Take these things away! Do not make My Father?s house a house of merchandise!?

In context He uses the phrase "Father's house" in reference to the physical Temple.

He uses the reference as a means to identify with the people.

Stephen is very clear. So is Isaiah.

Such talk is an allusion to the family of God. The house or habitat of God. The promise of "I will never leave you". Which is pretty much what God told Nathan to tell David when he desired to build Him a "house".

Go and tell my servant David, ?This is what the Lord says: Will you build a house for me to live in? 6 From the time I brought the Israelites out of Egypt until now I have not lived in a house. I have been moving around all this time with a tent as my home. 7 As I have moved with the Israelites, I have never said to the tribes, whom I commanded to take care of my people Israel, ?Why haven?t you built me a house of cedar???

8 ?You must tell my servant David, ?This is what the Lord All-Powerful says: I took you from the pasture and from tending the sheep and made you leader of my people Israel. 9 I have been with you everywhere you have gone and have defeated your enemies for you.

You see a rather dramatic shift following this. God is personally with David. Continually with David. Always with David. After this, it becomes all about the "building". Endlessly about the "building".

Mankind has a way of twisting most anything.

 

[T-Bone]

Don't intend to get into an argument, but the context of the phrase does make all the difference.  Ultimately we know that no building can contain God, nor does He need a building to dwell in...but at the same time Jesus said,

John 2:16 (NKJV)

16 And He said to those who sold doves, ?Take these things away! Do not make My Father?s house a house of merchandise!?

In context He uses the phrase "Father's house" in reference to the physical Temple.

He uses the reference as a means to identify with the people.

Stephen is very clear. So is Isaiah.

Such talk is an allusion to the family of God. The house or habitat of God. The promise of "I will never leave you". Which is pretty much what God told Nathan to tell David when he desired to build Him a "house".

Go and tell my servant David, ?This is what the Lord says: Will you build a house for me to live in? 6 From the time I brought the Israelites out of Egypt until now I have not lived in a house. I have been moving around all this time with a tent as my home. 7 As I have moved with the Israelites, I have never said to the tribes, whom I commanded to take care of my people Israel, ?Why haven?t you built me a house of cedar???

8 ?You must tell my servant David, ?This is what the Lord All-Powerful says: I took you from the pasture and from tending the sheep and made you leader of my people Israel. 9 I have been with you everywhere you have gone and have defeated your enemies for you.

You see a rather dramatic shift following this. God is personally with David. Continually with David. Always with David. After this, it becomes all about the "building". Endlessly about the "building".

Mankind has a way of twisting most anything.

Certainly agree the earthly Temple is representative of the heavenly...but to say that the physical has no meaning except as an allusion...not sure I buy that approach.  It is not all spiritual, the physical seem to matter to Jesus too.  That's the way I believe He meant it...but like I said, I don't intend to get into a argument over it.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Prophesied where? The temple of Solomon was destroyed long before the temple Jesus talked about.

No doubt. But it appears God dwelt in various temples over the years.

Read [urlhttp://goodnewspirit.com/herodstemple.htm]this[/url] and this.

Sure it is. It the first verse.

"Thus says the Lord: 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?'" This verse does not say "God doesn't dwell in such things". Yes the question is somewhat rhetorical and might make an implication, but certainly not a clear, indisputable fact as you state. Are you suggesting that God cannot be omnipresent?

Well... they sure killed Stephen for nothing.... They should have just said..... its not there....

The prophet talks of the impossibility of making a house for God. Its very clear. You're just ignoring it...

Certainly. I could build a shed in my backyard "for God" and not have Him put His Shekinah presence in it. But that doesn't mean that God would never choose a structure in which to inhabit.

Stephen was empowered by the Spirit of God. Peter didn't have the Spirit of God when he made his decision. Big difference.

Ah, yes. Yet Paul completely disregarded the Spirit of God (which led to this 'abomination that causes desolation') and you don't have any problems with that. That aside, there is no place in the Bible where the result of the casting of lots is against God's will (Proverbs 16:33). The decision was not a solo act of appointment but rather through prayer of the 120, it was decided. Yes, it was before the Spirit's presence in the Upper Room but that by no means negated the decision rooted in prayer and devotion to the ministry Christ directed.

ITs very clear from the Scriptures that God's intent in dwelling among his own had very little to do with something built by man.

And yet David, Ezra (or whoever it was who penned II Chronicles) and Jesus said otherwise.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Don't intend to get into an argument, but the context of the phrase does make all the difference.  Ultimately we know that no building can contain God, nor does He need a building to dwell in...but at the same time Jesus said,

John 2:16 (NKJV)

16 And He said to those who sold doves, ?Take these things away! Do not make My Father?s house a house of merchandise!?

In context He uses the phrase "Father's house" in reference to the physical Temple.

He uses the reference as a means to identify with the people.

Stephen is very clear. So is Isaiah.

Such talk is an allusion to the family of God. The house or habitat of God. The promise of "I will never leave you". Which is pretty much what God told Nathan to tell David when he desired to build Him a "house".

Go and tell my servant David, ?This is what the Lord says: Will you build a house for me to live in? 6 From the time I brought the Israelites out of Egypt until now I have not lived in a house. I have been moving around all this time with a tent as my home. 7 As I have moved with the Israelites, I have never said to the tribes, whom I commanded to take care of my people Israel, ?Why haven?t you built me a house of cedar???

8 ?You must tell my servant David, ?This is what the Lord All-Powerful says: I took you from the pasture and from tending the sheep and made you leader of my people Israel. 9 I have been with you everywhere you have gone and have defeated your enemies for you.

You see a rather dramatic shift following this. God is personally with David. Continually with David. Always with David. After this, it becomes all about the "building". Endlessly about the "building".

Mankind has a way of twisting most anything.

Certainly agree the earthly Temple is representative of the heavenly...but to say that the physical has no meaning except as an allusion...not sure I buy that approach.  It is not all spiritual, the physical seem to matter to Jesus too.  That's the way I believe He meant it...but like I said, I don't intend to get into a argument over it.

I'm just saying the ultimately intent was the final manifestation of the "house of God". I'm not saying that the "house of God" wasn't believed by a Jew to be the Temple. They were wrong. They stumbled over the truth. It was more about the building than it ever was about a personal relationship with God. We have the exact same situation today. What Jesus said. He said as a Jew in condemnation of his brethren.

Jesus even said "destroy this temple" and they didn't get that one either.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Certainly. I could build a shed in my backyard "for God" and not have Him put His Shekinah presence in it. But that doesn't mean that God would never choose a structure in which to inhabit.

'The prophet" said God didn't dwell in such. Seems rather simple to me. God has this "thing" about living in other peoples constructions. I don't blame Him. If He really did that..... people would start worshiping the place and not God....

Oh wait a minute..... that's what happened.

Ah, yes. Yet Paul completely disregarded the Spirit of God (which led to this 'abomination that causes desolation') and you don't have any problems with that.

I know you want to beat that horse.... but I'm going to walk away from it.

That aside, there is no place in the Bible where the result of the casting of lots is against God's will (Proverbs 16:33). The decision was not a solo act of appointment but rather through prayer of the 120, it was decided. Yes, it was before the Spirit's presence in the Upper Room but that by no means negated the decision rooted in prayer and devotion to the ministry Christ directed.

Do you really believe this.... or are you just arguing with me. I kinda believe the latter.

SM.... I've known a lot of people to get together and pray about something..... and it turned out their decision was the wrong decision. It is clear that God said wait. In fact, the word literally means to sit down. Do nothing. Peter was the leader. They all followed Peter. There is no way they would have disagreed with Peter. You know this. Its amazing how you want to accept this as truth in an attempt to discredit Paul.... and you want to reject what Stephen said. Well.... these same people appointed Stephen. Obviously you didn't like that decision.

And yet David, Ezra (or whoever it was who penned II Chronicles) and Jesus said otherwise.

Mind posting the verses? I posted the answer from God via Nathan. I answered the one about Jesus. You're just ignoring my answer.

 

[T-Bone]

Don't intend to get into an argument, but the context of the phrase does make all the difference.  Ultimately we know that no building can contain God, nor does He need a building to dwell in...but at the same time Jesus said,

John 2:16 (NKJV)

16 And He said to those who sold doves, ?Take these things away! Do not make My Father?s house a house of merchandise!?

In context He uses the phrase "Father's house" in reference to the physical Temple.

He uses the reference as a means to identify with the people.

Stephen is very clear. So is Isaiah.

Such talk is an allusion to the family of God. The house or habitat of God. The promise of "I will never leave you". Which is pretty much what God told Nathan to tell David when he desired to build Him a "house".

Go and tell my servant David, ?This is what the Lord says: Will you build a house for me to live in? 6 From the time I brought the Israelites out of Egypt until now I have not lived in a house. I have been moving around all this time with a tent as my home. 7 As I have moved with the Israelites, I have never said to the tribes, whom I commanded to take care of my people Israel, ?Why haven?t you built me a house of cedar???

8 ?You must tell my servant David, ?This is what the Lord All-Powerful says: I took you from the pasture and from tending the sheep and made you leader of my people Israel. 9 I have been with you everywhere you have gone and have defeated your enemies for you.

You see a rather dramatic shift following this. God is personally with David. Continually with David. Always with David. After this, it becomes all about the "building". Endlessly about the "building".

Mankind has a way of twisting most anything.

Certainly agree the earthly Temple is representative of the heavenly...but to say that the physical has no meaning except as an allusion...not sure I buy that approach.  It is not all spiritual, the physical seem to matter to Jesus too.  That's the way I believe He meant it...but like I said, I don't intend to get into a argument over it.

I'm just saying the ultimately intent was the final manifestation of the "house of God". I'm not saying that the "house of God" wasn't believed by a Jew to be the Temple. They were wrong. They stumbled over the truth. It was more about the building than it ever was about a personal relationship with God. We have the exact same situation today. What Jesus said. He said as a Jew in condemnation of his brethren.

Jesus even said "destroy this temple" and they didn't get that one either.

In those points I am in complete agreement.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Mind posting the verses? I posted the answer from God via Nathan. I answered the one about Jesus. You're just ignoring my answer.

All 3 were already quoted in this thread. You choose to dismiss them by stating they allude to something else. Not much else I can accomplish as I am not trying to coerce you into something you choose not to believe.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Mind posting the verses? I posted the answer from God via Nathan. I answered the one about Jesus. You're just ignoring my answer.

All 3 were already quoted in this thread. You choose to dismiss them by stating they allude to something else. Not much else I can accomplish as I am not trying to coerce you into something you choose not to believe.

I appreciate the effort.

Most of the time, I do enjoy arguing with you!