Come Out Of Her My People

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I did not claim people believe that. I am saying the words people use, such as calling the meeting house 'the house of God', implies such a thing. Referring to the meeting house as 'God's house' implies things that the speaker is likely not thinking of, aware of, or intending... thus those who speak of the meeting house as 'God's house' are speaking ignorantly. Surely it is a worthy goal to try not to speak ignorantly, is it not?

Ok, the old church mother (I hope posting that phrase won't get your feathers ruffled) believes that the believers make up the temple which God dwells within. Yet, still refers to the building as the house of God. So, what you are saying above frees this sister of all wrong doing because she isn't ignorant of the true meaning of "house of God" so therefore her using "house of God" to refer to the building isn't wrong?

Her worthy goal has been completed!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 1:13

If you felt it important to 'hold fast the form of sound words', you would have known that was in the Bible, Prax.

That's a far far cry from "Use only the words you see me write. Never use a different word"

2Ti 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

BTW the Greek word is Logos. It does not refer to the written word but in this case, as with others, is referring to what Paul taught

2Ti 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit the same to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2Ti 2:14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

2Ti 2:23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,

If you continue to read the theme isn't that there are certain words we are allowed to use or not allowed to use but certain DOCTRINES we must hold to or not hold to

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So then, you believe (honestly, now!) that to 'be as biblical as possible' means to revert to Greek and Hebrew?

No it seems he was saying that if your argument was true and to be consistent about being as biblical as possible in repeating ONLY the words the bible uses, then you should ONLY use the words the bible uses...not the translations

[Praxeas]

I ask again, why was the man made temple Solomon built called "House of God"? Why did Jesus call Herod's temple "My Father's house"?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No it seems he was saying that if your argument was true and to be consistent about being as biblical as possible in repeating ONLY the words the bible uses, then you should ONLY use the words the bible uses...not the translations

Thank you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I ask again, why was the man made temple Solomon built called "House of God"? Why did Jesus call Herod's temple "My Father's house"?

Because the PRESENCE of the Lord filled the house.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Thank you.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Because the PRESENCE of the Lord filled the house.

Thank you

Anyone else?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pliny

So now you want to change what YOU said. That's fine...
I wonder if you use the term rapture to... That would seem hypocritical to someone who wants only to use biblical language.

Did I change what I said? My entire point has been this:

1. The bible teaches that God has abandoned the use of buildings as His Temple. He does not dwell in them.
2. The bible speaks of the people of God as His Temple, the 'house of God'. (A temple is a house for a god, after all.)
3. Speaking of a building made with hands as 'God's house' does not express any Biblical concept, but instead actually expresses a concept that is contrary to a clearly taught bible doctrine (see 1 and 2 above).
4. Therefore, we should not refer to a building made with hands as God's house.

As for the 'rapture', no I do not speak of 'the rapture'. I do however speak of the resurrection, of the Lord's coming, and of our meeting Him in the air. I suppose you could call that 'the rapture', and even though I would suggest that biblical support for that term, in that context, is sketchy, I would also suggest it does not parallel the case before us. Because the term 'rapture' is not (in that particular case) a biblical term which expresses one thing in the bible, but is applied to another thing in our speaking that implies the opposite of it's biblical meaning.

If a person were to speak of their physical death as 'the rapture', then the case would be more parallel.

Now you know what the "speaker" thinks???
Pretty judgmental of you isn't it? You see m to know more about what the speaker implies than the speaker himself.
Thus we see whose ignorance is really showing.

I said 'likely not thinking of'. Or do you agree that when a person says 'welcome to the house of God' they really are thinking that God does indeed dwell in houses made with hands, that God still wants, desires, and expects buildings to serve as His temples?

As for ignorance, I did not say YOU were ignorant. Your descent into the ad hominem proves a point (to me, at least).

In any event, you all have had a mighty good try, but a few things remain undimished by your cherished clinging to man made tradition and will-worship.

1. The bible teaches explicitly that God does not dwell in houses made by hands (even if one paints a sign on it claiming it's his personal residence).

2. The apostles believed a certain way, which led them to speak of certain things in certain ways.

3. Many today believe a certain way, which leads them to speak of certain things in certain ways, albeit quite differently from (and even opposite to) the way the apostles spoke, and thus we may surmise, believed.

4. Very little, if any, theological discussion on AFF can be had without it degenerating into one big ad hominem strife.

God bless.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I ask again, why was the man made temple Solomon built called "House of God"? Why did Jesus call Herod's temple "My Father's house"?

Because God commanded that it be built, and chose it as His 'dwelling place'.

Did God command your church to build him a house made with hands, and choose it as His dwelling place?

Or did God not already say that He does not dwell in houses made with hands?

Did not God clearly and unambiguously declare that the people of God are the 'house of God'? His temple? His dwelling place? If so, then why would you call something else His dwelling place, His house, His temple?

Now, I understand this is an unimportant thing to you. Just as quite a few people think how a person is baptised is unimportant. Or even whether they need to be baptised or not.

But if it was important for God to make a theme in the bible about how He doesn't dwell in houses made with hands, how the only 'house of God' in this earth is the CHURCH (which is the PEOPLE of God), how He has rejected the only divinely commanded 'house of God' in history, how He caused it to be utterly destroyed and how He instead chose a PEOPLE to be His divinely constructed 'house', then I think it is important for our speech to present that truth, and not obscure it or contradict it.