Zakuska Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 So, the Temple as God's principle dwelling place is not tenable, in your view?If so, you are agreeing with me.LehiWell yes an no. He definatley lives in some kind of temple In the heavens. Thats how those who have seen it describe it. The temples we have on earth are just fashioned after those in the heavens. A mirror images so to speak..
Jesterss Posted October 12, 2011 Author 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.Lehipost #47 by cobalt would be the interpretations I get from the bible as well. Edited October 12, 2011 by Jesterss
LeSellers Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 post #47 by cobalt would be the interpretations I get from the bible as well.Which, again, does not prove anything, It only tells us what you believe.The question before the house is, Did God dwell in the Temple of Solomon or in the Tabernacle of Moses?Solomon says it's not possible. There is nothing definitive in the Bible that says He did.Lehi
Senator Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Well, my hunch is if God were to personally reside in the temple like He did on Sinai, that the Mormons, like the Israelites, wouldn't go anywhere near it.
Zakuska Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Which, again, does not prove anything, It only tells us what you believe.The question before the house is, Did God dwell in the Temple of Solomon or in the Tabernacle of Moses?Solomon says it's not possible. There is nothing definitive in the Bible that says He did.LehiSolomon says its not possible...?Yet we are told that he did.2 Chronicles 7:22 And the priests could not enter into the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord had filled the Lord’s house.1 Kings 8:1111 So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord.Exodus 40:3434 ¶Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Edited October 12, 2011 by Zakuska
LeSellers Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Solomon says its not possible...?Yet we are told that he did.2 Chronicles 7:22 And the priests could not enter into the house of the Lord, because the glory of the Lord had filled the Lord’s house.1 Kings 8:1111 So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord.Exodus 40:3434 ¶Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.The "glory of the Lord" is not the Lord, Himself.Nor do any of these passages say that the Lord dwelt in the Temple/Tabernacle, only that His glory filled it for the instance of the event being described.Lehi
Zakuska Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 The "glory of the Lord" is not the Lord, Himself.Nor do any of these passages say that the Lord dwelt in the Temple/Tabernacle, only that His glory filled it for the instance of the event being described.LehiFor the Lords Glory to fill it he had to be inside to shine forth. Exodus 25:88 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
Calm Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Well, my hunch is if God were to personally reside in the temple like He did on Sinai, that the Mormons, like the Israelites, wouldn't go anywhere near it. Do you mean with all the fireworks or just his Presence? Because we are also taught that many approached the resurrected Christ so I don't see everyone keeping their distance.
LeSellers Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 For the Lords Glory to fill it he had to be inside to shine forth. Exodus 25:88 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.First, there is nothing to show that for His glory to be in the Tabernacle/Temple, He must dwell in the Tabernacle/Temple.Second, the Ex 25 passage does not say He will dwell in the Sanctuary, only that the must be a sanctuary so He can dwell with His people.Lehi
Mark Beesley Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 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.Neither are we. Some folks may tend to take the scriptures too literally. I tend to look at scriptural passages much more symbolically. For example, when the Lord says something like, And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them, I don't see it as a statement of intent to literally reside among the people in a physical form. Rather, I see more of a statement that says, If they will build a temple and live worthy to enter, then they will be living a life that will: (1) allow them to have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion; and (2) allow them to return speedily to the Lord's heavenly abode when the time comes (in contrast to those who are taking the scenic route home). 1
wenglund Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 First, there is nothing to show that for His glory to be in the Tabernacle/Temple, He must dwell in the Tabernacle/Temple.Second, the Ex 25 passage does not say He will dwell in the Sanctuary, only that the must be a sanctuary so He can dwell with His people.LehiI read these passages and others in somewhat less black/white or either/or terms, and as such I believe that, in one respect, the Lord does dwell in these temples, and in another respect he doesn't. To me, it isn't either/or, but reasonably both.I can respect, though, if you read them differently.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
LeSellers Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I read these passages and others in somewhat less black/white or either/or terms, and as such I believe that, in one respect, the Lord does dwell in these temples, and in another respect he doesn't. To me, it isn't either/or, but reasonably both.I can respect, though, if you read them differently.I believe we are are the same page. I have not said that God did not dwell in either the Tabernacle or the Temple (of Solomon), but I have said that neither was His principle residence.Lehi
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 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.It was also the Pre-Mortal Christ who was in the OT Temples...it is "His" house; JEHOVAH.
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) It was also the Pre-Mortal Christ who was in the OT Temples...it is "His" house; JEHOVAH.YHWH. But I can kind of agree to that. Edited October 13, 2011 by Jesterss
altersteve Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 YHWH. But I can kind of agree to that.Jehovah and YHWH are the same thing.
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 Jehovah and YHWH are the same thing.No, not really.http://www.geocentricity.com/bible/whoisyahweh.pdf
altersteve Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 No, not really.http://www.geocentri...whoisyahweh.pdfYes, really. Referring to Christ as Jehovah is just as accurate as calling Him YHWH, or Yahweh.
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 Yes, really. Referring to Christ as Jehovah is just as accurate as calling Him YHWH, or Yahweh.Did you even venture to read that reference I gave you... perhaps if you had, you would realize that Jehovah is not a correct pronunciation of YHWH...
altersteve Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Did you even venture to read that reference I gave you... perhaps if you had, you would realize that Jehovah is not a correct pronunciation of YHWH...The pronunciation was not what I was talking about.
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 The pronunciation was not what I was talking about.But the pronunciation is all about giving an accurate depiction of who God really is and what his real name is. I could understand if you called him, God, Father, I AM, YHWH, Yahweh, but Jehovah is not an accurate name for God the Father. It was changed. It would be like you calling me Yesjvess instead of Jesterss... Would I answer to that? No, it is not my name. We would have no idea who you were referring to.. So pronunciation is important especially when talking about the MOST important...
altersteve Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) But the pronunciation is all about giving an accurate depiction of who God really is and what his real name is. I could understand if you called him, God, Father, I AM, YHWH, Yahweh, but Jehovah is not an accurate name for God the Father. It was changed. It would be like you calling me Yesjvess instead of Jesterss... Would I answer to that? No, it is not my name. We would have no idea who you were referring to.. So pronunciation is important especially when talking about the MOST important...I AM, YHWH, and Jehovah are not names for God the Father, they are names for Jesus Christ. And I think He understands that it is He who is being referred to, and everyone else understands that Jehovah is a modern pronunciation of YHWH. That's all that matters. He's referred to as Jehovah in all four standard works and His prophets have referred to Him as such, and that's good enough for me. Edited October 13, 2011 by altersteve
Jesterss Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 I AM, YHWH, and Jehovah are not names for God the Father, they are names for Jesus Christ. CFR that YHWH, I Am Who Am, Yahweh and in your case, Jehovah are all referring to Jesus and not God...
Bill Hamblin Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Jehovah is simply the Latinate spelling of YHWH. In Old Latin, the J is the form of the initial I, which is pronounced Y when used as a consonant. V in Old Latin was pronounced as our English W. So JeHoVaH is simply the Latin way to write YeHoWaH. The original pronunciation of the vowels of Old Hebrew YHWH is uncertain, but JeHoVaH in Old Latin would have been pronounced YeHoWaH. It's precisely the same name. (Paradoxically, modern Israeli Hebrew now mispronounces the Old Hebrew Waw as Vav, so that modern English and Modern Hebrew both mispronounce the Old Hebrew W/V in the same way).
volgadon Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 (Paradoxically, modern Israeli Hebrew now mispronounces the Old Hebrew Waw as Vav, so that modern English and Modern Hebrew both mispronounce the Old Hebrew W/V in the same way).Being, to my knowledge, the only native speaker of modern Israeli Hebrew I have to say that you are correct.
volgadon Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 But the pronunciation is all about giving an accurate depiction of who God really is and what his real name is. I could understand if you called him, God, Father, I AM, YHWH, Yahweh, but Jehovah is not an accurate name for God the Father. It was changed. It would be like you calling me Yesjvess instead of Jesterss... Would I answer to that? No, it is not my name. We would have no idea who you were referring to.. So pronunciation is important especially when talking about the MOST important...No, it would be like calling you iesterss.
Recommended Posts