altersteve Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Savior in da house!(ok that was irreverent - repenting)I lol'd
Cobalt-70 Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) So based off this statement and Zerinus' quotes, what do you say about Acts 17:24 when Paul says: "“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands...."DarkScythe and LeSellers say he does not live there, which to me would be the same as saying he doesn't dwell there. Yet Cobalt says he does dwell there. So, seems like conflicting ideas.There are four possibilities: (1) the author of Acts (and/or Paul) is wrong, perhaps because he was ignorant of Hebrew history, (2) the ancient Hebrews, who created the Ark of the Covenant with an empty space between the Cherubim so that their invisible YHWH could dwell there, and then presented YHWH with sacrifices, were wrong, (3) the Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant idea that god is omnipresent (and therefore dwells in all buildings made by man) is wrong, or (4) Paul was making a rhetorical point to convince the Athenians that they could consider their pagan "Unknown God" to actually be the Christian God, and that he merely meant that God was not a golden or silver idol. Edited October 11, 2011 by Cobalt-70
wenglund Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 So based off this statement and Zerinus' quotes, what do you say about Acts 17:24 when Paul says: "“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands...."DarkScythe and LeSellers say he does not live there, which to me would be the same as saying he doesn't dwell there. Yet Cobalt says he does dwell there. So, seems like conflicting ideas.It is reconciled in my mind by understanding the different meanings of the word "temple". I understand the temple referred to in Acts to be in regards to God's own spiritual or resurrected body (as contrasted with the human-hued statues of Athenian gods), and not in regards to the "house of the Lord" that God commanded should be built as a symbol of his dwelling amongst "Israel". Paul was here concerned about idolatry (v.15), and determined, by contrast to the Athenian gods, to declare unto the questioners the UNKNOWN GOD he had preached elsewhere.We can be somewhat certain that Paul wasn't referring to the temples that God commanded men to build (like Solomon's temple), or the temples of the mortal bodies of the Saints, since there are multiple biblical passages where God is said to dwell therein. Otherwise, the Bible would be in contradiction with itself. And, I suspect that Evangelicals would somewhat agree--at least Rob has when I pressed him on the matter.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Cobalt-70 Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 ...Otherwise, the Bible would be in contradiction with itself....And we know that that never happens.
zerinus Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Jesus can visit anywhere he wants. It is not like he would never visit the earth if we didn't build him temples.Why do you insist on making such daft comments? When we say that God can visit His holy temples if He chooses to, it doesn't mean that He cannot appear anywhere else on earth. It means that that is where He is most likely to appear to His Saints who are worthy to see Him:Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lordof hosts. Edited October 12, 2011 by zerinus
zerinus Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 So based off this statement and Zerinus' quotes, what do you say about Acts 17:24 when Paul says: "“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands...."DarkScythe and LeSellers say he does not live there, which to me would be the same as saying he doesn't dwell there. Yet Cobalt says he does dwell there. So, seems like conflicting ideas.Paul was referring to idolatrous worship of the pagans. They had physical gods residing permanently in physical temples. I thought I just explained to you that we don't believe that God physically resides in our temples either. He doesn't have a bedroom in there where He sleeps overnight. He resides in them by means of His Spirit; and He can also visit His people there who are worthy of Him if He chooses to. See quote I gave from Malachi in my previous post.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Why do you insist on making such daft comments? When we say that God can visit His holy temples if He chooses to, it doesn't mean that He cannot appear anywhere else on earth. It means that that is where He is most likely to appear to His Saints who are worthy to see Him:Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lordof hosts.This temple that Malachi is referring to is the temple in Jerusalem. But that is just one visit by YHWH to his temple. One example is not sufficient to make the statistical conclusion that Jesus is "most likely" to appear, of all other places, in a Mormon temple. I wouldn't presume to predict where Jesus will show. Maybe he would rather show up in soup kitchen, or the homeless shelter among those who need him far more than worthy Mormons.
Kenngo1969 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) ... Maybe he would rather show up in soup kitchen, or the homeless shelter among those who need him far more than worthy Mormons.Define http://lds.org/churchmusic/detailmusicPlayer/index.html?searchlanguage=1&searchcollection=1&searchseqstart=98&searchsubseqstart= &searchseqend=98&searchsubseqend=ZZZ "need." See also Mosiah 4:19-21. Edited October 12, 2011 by Kenngo1969
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Ok, so obviously I'm not aware of this. Just want to make that very clear right off. My knowledge about your temples and beliefs is limited. I just know that there are a ton of mormon temples throughout the world and in a previous discussion this idea came to me. Do mormons believe that God resides in these temples? Is there a holy of holies?I'm also not sure if this is appropriate as I realize that the temple discussions can be tedious and highly guarded. So if this topic is ok with the moderators or anyone willing to divulge on it. I would be curious to know.Are you asking “Physically or Spiritually”? Christ is a corporal being he can only be one place at a time…do you agree. Remember I am speaking of Christ, not the Holy Spirit. We believe he has visited his Temples, two stories in particular comes to mind.
Mark Beesley Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Do mormons believe that God resides in these temples?Some Mormons may believe it. Others may not. We're really not all that unified on beliefs that go beyond, for example, the Articles of Faith.That being said, what do you mean when you use the term God? Do you mean the corporeal substance of the Father? Of the Christ? Of the Holy Ghost?And what do you mean with term reside?For myself, no, I do not believe the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost reside in any temple of the Church. Nor do I beleve that the Father has ever visited one. I do believe that the Christ has appeared in various temples at times for specific reasons, but He did not stay longer than needed to accomplish the task at hand.As for the Holy Ghost, well think of His presence in a Temple in the same way that you would consider the influence of the Sun on a particular building. The Sun does not reside in my living room. But its rays provide warmth and light.
Jesterss Posted October 12, 2011 Author Posted October 12, 2011 Some Mormons may believe it. Others may not. We're really not all that unified on beliefs that go beyond, for example, the Articles of Faith.That's what I've come to see in these postings. Lot of mixed feelings. So I wasn't sure.That being said, what do you mean when you use the term God? Do you mean the corporeal substance of the Father? Of the Christ? Of the Holy Ghost?God the Father. And what do you mean with term reside?Have one's home permanently. To be situated there. For myself, no, I do not believe the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost reside in any temple of the Church. Nor do I beleve that the Father has ever visited one. I do believe that the Christ has appeared in various temples at times for specific reasons, but He did not stay longer than needed to accomplish the task at hand.I think I could agree with this comment very much so. Thank you. I think you understood the question. As for the Holy Ghost, well think of His presence in a Temple in the same way that you would consider the influence of the Sun on a particular building. The Sun does not reside in my living room. But its rays provide warmth and light.Definitely. Would agree here as well.
Jesterss Posted October 12, 2011 Author Posted October 12, 2011 Are you asking “Physically or Spiritually”? Christ is a corporal being he can only be one place at a time…do you agree. Remember I am speaking of Christ, not the Holy Spirit. We believe he has visited his Temples, two stories in particular comes to mind.Well, I suppose for better clarification I meant God the Father. As in a comparison to OT temples. The God who resided in those. Who had a physical dwelling place in them.
Jesterss Posted October 12, 2011 Author Posted October 12, 2011 Paul was referring to idolatrous worship of the pagans.That's never been my take but I will read it again and try to see how you get there. My take is that yes he is talking to the pagans and idolatrous worshippers, but he tells us which God he is referring to. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands."... The God who created the world and everything in it, the lord of heaven and earth.. So it is the one and only God. I'm not seeing your connection. Perhaps you have a reference in mind to make this connection?
zerinus Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 That's never been my take but I will read it again and try to see how you get there. My take is that yes he is talking to the pagans and idolatrous worshippers, but he tells us which God he is referring to. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands."... The God who created the world and everything in it, the lord of heaven and earth.. So it is the one and only God. I'm not seeing your connection. Perhaps you have a reference in mind to make this connection?If you read all of my post instead of quoting one sentence out of context, you would not need to as that question.
Jesterss Posted October 12, 2011 Author Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) If you read all of my post instead of quoting one sentence out of context, you would not need to as that question.My question still stands. Malachi 3 is LDS reference. And again, I understand that this is an LDS forum board, and to answer my initial question this would suffice. But in making the biblical connection to me, by referencing an LDS one, does not make the connection for me.Again I ask: How do you get that the God who is being talked about in Acts 17:24 being a pagan God? Edited October 12, 2011 by Jesterss
altersteve Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Again I ask: How do you get that the God who is being talked about in Acts 17:24 being a pagan God?That's not even close to what zerinus said.
thesometimesaint Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Mark Beesley:God the Father is pretty busy. But I believe he does visit whenever he wants to.
Jesterss Posted October 12, 2011 Author Posted October 12, 2011 That's not even close to what zerinus said.Perhaps I got sidetracked. Let's reassume his point then. Paul was referring to idolatrous worship of the pagans. They had physical gods residing permanently in physical temples. I thought I just explained to you that we don't believe that God physically resides in our temples either. He doesn't have a bedroom in there where He sleeps overnight. He resides in them by means of His Spirit; and He can also visit His people there who are worthy of Him if He chooses to. See quote I gave from Malachi in my previous post. We know that God resided in the Temples of Old Testament time. Such as the Tabernacle and Solomon's temple. Sorry if I missed the point. perhaps I did get sidetracked. But your statements are a bit confusing.
LeSellers Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 We know that God resided in the Temples of Old Testament time. Such as the Tabernacle and Solomon's temple.Actually, we do not know this.Solomon explicitly said that God would not dwell in the Temple he'd built. It's doubtful, aside from a bit of hyperbolic metaphor, that the Bible says He dwelt in Moses' Tabernacle, either.Lehi
Zakuska Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Actually, we do not know this.Solomon explicitly said that God would not dwell in the Temple he'd built. It's doubtful, aside from a bit of hyperbolic metaphor, that the Bible says He dwelt in Moses' Tabernacle, either.LehiIm not to sure about that. There is an awfly lot of coming and going in and out of that tent by that cloudy light thingy for God not to reside there. On the mount of Transfiguration too... the Apostles offered to make 3 tents for those present.I think the Hyperbole of the prophets is actually a missunderstand of the verses that declare that God fills the heavens and the heaven of heavens can't contain him. To me those just say that God is unlimited when it comes to travelling the stars there isnt anwhere where God cant get to. I also think that God is so active and moves around so much that the idea of him having a perminent residence is obsurd and so he becomes the ultimate wonderer. Kind of like Christ. Not having a place to lay his head.Either that or he's the ultimate Tree Hugger. Edited October 12, 2011 by Zakuska
LeSellers Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Im not to sure about that. There is an awfly lot of coming and going in and out of that tent by that cloudy light thingy for God not to reside there. On the mount of Transfiguration too... the Apostles offered to make 3 tents for those present.I think the Hyperbole of the prophets is actually a missunderstand of the verses that declare that God fills the heavens and the heaven of heavens can't contain him. To me those just say that God is unlimited when it comes to travelling the stars there isnt anwhere where God cant get to. I also think that God is so active and moves around so much that the idea of him having a perminent residence is obsurd and so he becomes the ultimate wonderer. Kind of like Christ. Not having a place to lay his head.So, are you agreeing with me or not?Lehi
Cobalt-70 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Solomon explicitly said that God would not dwell in the Temple he'd built. It's doubtful, aside from a bit of hyperbolic metaphor, that the Bible says He dwelt in Moses' Tabernacle, either.The Yahwist Hebrews believed that the invisible YHWH resided above the empty space between the two cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant. That is what distinguished their god from the other Hebrew gods, which had physical idols rather than just an empty space. See, e.g., Ex. 25:22 (And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony."); Ex. 30:6; Lev. 16:2; Num. 7:89. This ark was kept in the Holy of Holies of Solomon's temple. Edited October 12, 2011 by Cobalt-70 1
LeSellers Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 The Yahwist Hebrews believed that the invisible YHWH resided above the empty throne between the two cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant. What they believed was not the question: it was whether, in fact, He did.Lehi
Zakuska Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 So, are you agreeing with me or not?LehiI think God can dwell where ever he likes. The whole "temple made with hands" to me just designates that he a naturalist. Living out in the open. He doesn't have one place of residence. Or more like everywhere is his dwelling place.
LeSellers Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 I think God can dwell where ever he likes. The whole "temple made with hands" to me just designates that he a naturalist. Living out in the open. He doesn't have one place of residence. Or more like everywhere is his dwelling place.So, the Temple as God's principle dwelling place is not tenable, in your view? If so, you are agreeing with me.Lehi
Recommended Posts