logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Heretic Steve  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:10:45 AM(UTC)
Heretic Steve
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 258
Location: ohio

The Jew's clamored for a king and were given Saul the donkey wrangler. Apparently a king was not Yah's idea. Along the same lines, Yah directed the construction of what appears to be a mobile tabernacle. This was eventually replaced by "Solomon's temple", however the temple appears to have been Davids idea and not Yah's even though it also appears that Yah acquiesced, (2 Samuel 7), as He also did with the 'king' issue.
Do I have this right? Is there any evidence that a splediforous stone edifice was Yah's idea? And that it was preferred over His cloth/skin Tabernacle?
There is a reason I ask this. Here's the scenario. I'm explaining why the christian religion is a Bab counterfeit and why I don't attend the "house of the lord", on the "lord's day", in order to pray, give thanks, and sing praises to the "lord", etc. Also, that Yah made no mention of stone edifices in His Miqra assemblies and that all the pagan religions "worshipped " their gods in stone edifices/buildings/"churches". The invariable comeback? "God was worshipped in Solomon's temple". This of course can't be denied, yet if it can be demonstrated that "Solomon's temple" was not plan 'A', (just as a human king was not plan 'A'), and that it was in fact not Yah's idea, that He merely acquiesced, then maybe this would lend the issue more credence.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
Offline kp  
#2 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:08:47 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

It's true that Yahweh never told anybody to build Him a temple (though the design of the Tabernacle was specified by Yahweh in excruciating detail and followed to a great extent in the Temple of Solomon). There are apparently three things that matter to Yahweh in regard to this subject. First, our heart's attitude: David really, really wanted to honor his God, and TI was the result. Second, design: the temple (as in the tabernacle) is an architectural picture of Yahweh's redemptive plan. I cover this in some detail in The Owner's Manual. Third, location. During the wilderness wanderings and the conquest of Canaan, Yahweh spoke incessantly of "the place where I will choose to make My name abide." That turned out to be Jerusalem, more specifically, Mount Moriah, where as far back as Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, Yahweh had chosen this place as ground zero for His plan of redemption.

There's also the little matter of the Millennial Temple, which will be built not on the temple mount but a few hundred yards away---on Golgotha, the summit of Moriah. This temple will be built at Yahshua's direction, and it will follow the same plan as the previous structures, for the story remains the same. I describe it in detail in Future History, chapter 27 (cleverly entitled, "The Millennial Temple").

While I would encourage you to follow the admonition of Hebrews 10:25, and "not forsake the assembling of yourself together" with like-minded believers, your observation of the lameness of the argument: "Church buildings follow the example of Solomon's Temple" is perfectly valid. Ordinary worshippers didn't actually enter the temple; only the priests did, and only the High Priest entered the most holy place, and then only once a year. The temple, in other words, was not a building in which people met. That tradition was started much later, as the synagogue (not a scriptural commandment, but not a bad idea, either). And when did they gather at the synagogue? On the Sabbath. If your friends want to play this game, they'll find themselves on a very slippery slope.

Believe it or not, I have no problem with Sunday worship, or Wednesday night, or Tuesday morning or Friday at tea time. At the same time, I am adamant that the Sabbath should be set apart as a time to honor and commune with Yahweh. What I have a problem with is people who assume their religious traditions are the way God wants things, with no scriptural evidence whatsoever. A "church building" is merely a convenience, a handy way to keep the rain off your head while you gather in the name of Yahshua---nothing more. It is not "God's house" any more than my office is. Thus any attempt at opulent magnificence or impressive permanence is simply wasted money, money far better spent feeding the sheep and seeking the lost.

kp
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#3 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:40:08 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
kp wrote:

Believe it or not, I have no problem with Sunday worship, or Wednesday night, or Tuesday morning or Friday at tea time. At the same time, I am adamant that the Sabbath should be set apart as a time to honor and commune with Yahweh. What I have a problem with is people who assume their religious traditions are the way God wants things, with no scriptural evidence whatsoever. A "church building" is merely a convenience, a handy way to keep the rain off your head while you gather in the name of Yahshua---nothing more. It is not "God's house" any more than my office is. Thus any attempt at opulent magnificence or impressive permanence is simply wasted money, money far better spent feeding the sheep and seeking the lost.

kp



Bingo! :)
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Heretic Steve  
#4 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:31:52 AM(UTC)
Heretic Steve
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 258
Location: ohio

Thanks Ken. I overlooked the, "they also observed the Sabbath" reply to the, "they worshipped in Solomon's Temple" observation/riposte.
I understand sunday "worship" is a personal decision. However, with all the unqualified commands not to emulate pagan worship, I refrain as I find doing so, (sunday worship), a compromise.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
Offline Ruchamah  
#5 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:15:28 AM(UTC)
Ruchamah
Joined: 8/7/2007(UTC)
Posts: 72
Location: TN

For information on the Temple (solomon's or Second) I would encoutrage you to check out:
www.templeinstitute.org Specifically, A DAY IN THE TEMPLE. It took me about three days to go thru the whole thing but was time well spent!

It has always been G-d's intent to *dwell in the midst* of His people, physically as well as spiritually, first in the Tabernacle, then in the Temple. Both earthly places (tabernacle AND Temple) were made according to the PATTERN of what was in the Heavenlies.

It isnt until we get to the 8th day that there is no more need for an earthly Sanctuary: the Shekinah and the Lamb will walk in our midst.

Quote:
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.


Shalom,
Ruchamah
If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance.
Offline CK  
#6 Posted : Monday, October 29, 2007 9:42:48 PM(UTC)
CK
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 128
Location: Washington State

KP,

I agree. I don't have a problem with any day of the week worship, but blessed be the set apart Sabbath! Praise Yah!

CK
Offline eddielilo  
#7 Posted : Friday, February 18, 2011 11:00:54 AM(UTC)
eddielilo
Joined: 2/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 4
Location: Pennsylvania

It seems to me that the "vs" (versus) is the most interesting thing about this topic. This suggests that the tabernacle and temple had different (not in a negative sense) revelational purposes. It has always seemed puzzling to me that David would bring back the ark and build a temporary tent for it in Jerusalem, when he could have simply returned it to the tabernacle, which was nearby. What did he know that he did not explain? I'd like to suggest, for your discussion and input, a few differences between the tabernacle and temple (just one for now):

1. The Tabernacle is Associated with Holy War, while the Temple is Associated with Peace - Num 10: 35; 1 Kgs 5: 3-5.

The verses cited suggest that the tabernacle was not simply mobile, for the time of movement during the wilderness, but that it was a sort of palladium of war; otherwise why does Moses relate its movement to the scattering of enemies in Num 10:35, whenever the ark set out. This means that Moses made this statement each and every time the ark set out.
Although we are never told this explicitly, it appears as the ark normally accompanied the army in battle (cf Jericho and cf. 2Sam 11: 11 - "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents and my master Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open fields. How could I go to my house to eat and drink adn lie with my wife..."
Also consider all the texts that speak of David's inability to build the temple because he was a "bloody man", a "man of war" [='soldier' or 'ish milchamah'] - note 1 Kgs 5: 3.
Finally, if David was a man of war, Solomon was a man of peace and WAS able to build the temple, 1 Chr 22: 7-9 [note the reasoning - 1) he will be a man of peace; 2) I will give him rest on every side; 3) his name will be Solomon = 'peace'.
I infer from all this that the Lord intended to reveal himself through the tabernacle as the God who was going to go before Israel as a Man of War (Ex 15: 3) to rout Israel's enemies and enable each man to defeat a thousand, and bring Israel rest through Herem wafare. The temple, on the contrary was meant to reveal the peaceful kingdom of Yahweh during a time of rest from all their enemies.
Joshua did not bring Israel rest, and the conquest was postponed during the period of the Judges (cf Josh 23: 13 and Judg 2:21); it was David who brought rest to the people. So these sets of redemptive associations point to different functions, different revelational purposes for the tabernacle (for the period of conquest) and for the temple (for messianicpeace).

I would appreciate any input,objections, etc.
Offline eddielilo  
#8 Posted : Monday, February 21, 2011 8:22:09 AM(UTC)
eddielilo
Joined: 2/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 4
Location: Pennsylvania

A second suggestion I'd like to make about this topic (progression from tabernacle to temple):

2. The Tabernacle is Associated with the Beginning of Redemption, while the Temple is Associated with the Completion. - Tabernacle set up first month of feast calendar; temple inaugurated the seventh month.

The end point of the exodus is to re-establish Yahweh's presence with the New Adam (Israel as the Son of God, Ex 4: 22). He also brought his people through the wilderness to estblish them in the land. Exodus 15 makes it clear that the Exodus was not only to deliver his people from the power of the world, but also to bring them into a graciously given inheritance, with his sanctuary in the midst of the people. Adam had been cast out of Yahweh's presence and now that presence was to be restored. The means of doing that was both Tabernacle (for the conquest period) and Temple (for the period of peace).

According to Exodus 12:1 Yahweh established a new calendar for Israel, according to which the month of deliverance was associated with this new first month, their new beginning. According to Exodus 40:2, Moses was to set up the tabernacle on the 1st day of the first month. Hence the tabernacle is associated with the beginning of their new calendar of deliverance.
According to 1 Kings the inauguration of the temple was in the 7th month about at the time of the festival (of Tabernacles). This means he apparently waited 11 months for the completion to the time of inauguration.

This means that the tabernacle is associated with the beginning of deliverance, and the temple with the completion of deliverance.

Offline FredSnell  
#9 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 1:35:09 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
hi eddielelo, you wrote, "This means that the tabernacle is associated with the beginning of deliverance, and the temple with the completion of deliverance."
Can't tell you anything you probably don't already no, but after reading your two post, I thought I would jump ahead in Torah class and get a glimpse of this mans
perspetive. Here's what he says,
"Moses well understood that the divine rules as given in the Torah were that it was above the Ark where the Lord manifests His presence; but the Ark was to be within the tent sanctuary when that occurred. Therefore the Lord did NOT (insofar as Moses was aware) become present above the Ark when the Ark was traveling. Further since the Lord God promised Moses that He would defeat Israel's enemies ahead of Israel, the word picture expressed in this poem is that the Lord rises away from the Ark and goes out to do battle ahead of Israel.
Thus in verse 36, when the battle is over and the camp of Israel comes to a rest (and therefore the Ark comes to a rest), the Tabernacle is re-erected, the Ark is set in it's proper guarded place, and then Moses beseeches the Lord to "return".This beautiful and joyous hymn that glorifies the God of Israel was placed here for emphasis and to display some irony; because after all this praising of Yehoveh, and His invincibility, and His perfection, and the fear simply the sight of the Ark produces in Israel's enemies, almost immediately complaining and rebellion begins anew among the Hebrews. This attitude of reluctance and rebellion is what we're going to see emerge starting in Numbers chapter 11, which we'll begin next time we meet.

Have you been on the board long enough and read a few coments on Torahclass.com? I need all the help I and my wife can find. We have little precious time left by the end of our days and was shown this jewel by one of its members her..(hope your doing well). On a good night I can get in a complete lesson and on my Sabbath I always hope to get in several and did this Sabbath, but I'll tell you, I'm slow to learn. I sometimes think to myself, "do I have room up there for one more piece of info." I'll tell you like I was told, in a way. Go to Torahclass.com, it's refreashing and a real eye opener. peace!
Offline FredSnell  
#10 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 2:49:25 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
I kept reading after I posted to you, eddielilo. I found this interesting and hope maybe you do also....."So, if I can accomplish anything in Torah Class, I hope it is to demonstrate that the manmade designations and divisions of Old and New Testaments are a terrible, artificial thing that has served to do nothing but divide God's people. The Old Testament for the Jews, the New Testament for the gentiles. In reality, the book of Matthew should have been simply the next book following Ezra, in the same way that Exodus is but the next book after Genesis; unfortunately Matthew is virtually seen by Jews and Christians alike as the first book of a whole new Bible, separate from the previous. The Hebrew Bible, the Tanach, what we call the Old Testament, is like the blueprints for a house. What we have labeled the New Testament is like the house itself. No doubt we can move into that house, and enjoy it as is. But, if we want to understand what materials were used to build the house, where the electrical wires run, where the pipes are located, how the foundation was built, what's inside those walls, we have to have the blueprints.
As Believers, we're called to be much more than occupiers of the house. We're to strive to understand all there is that can be known ABOUT the house.
Once we can understand and accept that the Bible is an undivided whole, then we can apply the patterns and principles of Torah to the Gospels and Epistles.....as it was meant to be..... and have a much better understanding of their meaning and how to apply it to our lives."
Offline lassie1865  
#11 Posted : Sunday, March 13, 2011 8:41:30 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

I still have questions about the parable of the old and new wineskins. The parable begins with a question about fasting; Yahowsha saying that while the Bridegroom is here, there is no fasting, but when He is taken away, then His disciples will fast. He then goes on to discuss the old and 'new' as 'reconditioned' wineskins. Of course, churches say that this parable is discussing the 'Old Covenant' vs. the 'New Covenant'. I can I better understand this?
Offline Yah Tselem  
#12 Posted : Monday, March 14, 2011 6:46:15 AM(UTC)
Yah Tselem
Joined: 3/13/2008(UTC)
Posts: 212
Man
United States
Location: Southern Wisconsin

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Mat 9: 14-17
Quote:
Then, at that time, the disciples and followers, pupils and learners, apprentices and adherents of Yahuchanon approach, draw and come near to Him, saying and teaching, maintaining and affirming, directing and exhorting, advising and pointing out, “Through the means of and on the grounds of, on account of and for the reason of, on the basis of and because of what reason do we and the Pharisees fast, abstaining from food for religious purposes, yet your own disciples and followers, pupils and learners, apprentices and adherents do not fast, never abstaining from food for religious purposes?” So Yahushua* said to them, “Throughout the amount of time that the bridegroom is and exists together with them, the sons of the bridal chamber, the bridegrooms guests, are not powerful or mighty, able or capable, forceful or influenceable, authorised or significant, competent or excellent enough to grieve and show remorse, lament and mourn, be sad and be in emotional pain. But nevertheless, the days and times, ages and seasons will come to be and exist, arise and appear in their view when the bridegroom may be taken away and lifted up, carried off and removed from their presence, becoming separate from them, and then, at that time, they will fast, abstaining from food. Now, no one, nobody and nothing casts and throws, puts and places, lays and sows a piece and patch of unshrunken and unbleached, new and unprocessed cloth upon an old and obsolete, worn out and ancient, dated and aged garment and piece of clothing, cloak and mantle, for the reason that the patch that was used to complete and fulfil, perfect and finish, execute, conclude and fill up the hole will lift and raise, elevate and remove itself, separating itself from the garment and piece of clothing, cloak and mantle, and a worse and more severe, very bad and more grievous split and rift, division, rent and tear comes to be and exists, arises and appears in view. Neither and nor do they throw or put, place or pour new and fresh, recent, renewed and superior wine into old and obsolete, worn out and ancient, dated and aged wineskins and leather bags. Indeed, even if they do, the wineskins and leather bags are torn and ripped, burst and broken, and the wine is poured out and spilled, scattered and shed, and the wineskins and leather bags are destroyed and ruined, annihilated and rendered useless, lost and abolished, wasted and caused to perish and pass away. But nevertheless, notwithstanding and on the contrary, they throw and put, place and pour new and fresh, recent, renewed and superior wine is for and on behalf of a new and fresh, renewed and unused, unprecedented and uncommon, unknown and remarkable, impressive and superior wineskins and leather bags, and both of them together are guarded and defended, preserved and protected, being kept him safe and sound, and never perishing


My take on it is this: Yahuchanon's followers are the ones asking Yahowsha the question, why is it that they fast, and the pharisees fast, but Yahowsha's own disciples don't fast? First he says he is the bridegroom, so why should they fast, asking for God to show his favor to Israel, when that was already being fulfilled by Him? Then Yahowsha speaks of 2 parables, one is when you put a patch on an old worn out piece of clothing, it will rise up and separate from the clothing, causing an even bigger rip. Then he says you don't put new wine in old wineskins because the wineskins will rip, spilling the wine. .... so (perhaps) he is referring to the fact that the disciples have not received the spirit yet..and they weren't ready for it yet.. so it would be like Yahuwah giving his spirit to someone who wasn't ready to receive it, therefore it wouldn't work... but soon Yahowsha would be leaving them and then they would see things differently and would be in a position for Yahowah to give them the set apart spirit. There may be more to it than this, or I may just be wrong, so if anyone wants to add anything..
Offline lassie1865  
#13 Posted : Monday, March 14, 2011 8:29:18 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Yah Tselem,

That is a very good perspective.

I was also reading at

http://ffoz.org/messiaho...iah/yeshuas_new_wine.php

and found some info there, which incorporates the historical/cultural understanding of the time regarding "new", uneducated students as compared with "old", educated students which makes the parable more clear.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.