Come Out Of Her My People

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You said we should call Bible things by Bible names. Those are Hebrew and Greek not English.
You said, after stating we should call things by their biblical names that those words mean things. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that we should again use Hebrew and Greek terms not English.
You then stated that some "prefer" to seek to be as biblical as possible - that would mean once again Hebrew and Greek.

So then, you believe (honestly, now!) that to 'be as biblical as possible' means to revert to Greek and Hebrew? Is it possible to 'be as biblical AS POSSIBLE', as an English speaker, while retaining an English translation of Scripture? While expressing the apostolic teaching sin English, rather in Greek? If you do believe that, then our differences go further than the subject of this thread. If you do not believe that, then you have no basis to claim that I am demanding we revert only to Greek and Hebrew. I am not claiming we need to. I certainly believe the Scriptures can and ought to be translated into the disciple's native tongue. And I believe that english speaking people can 'be as biblical as possible' while retaining English.

Please demonstrate where anyone here said the people are not the temple of God.

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?

As to calling a man-made structure "the house of God" I see no issue with it.
It is understood that God does not physically dwell in houses. He is omnipresent and every Christian should know that the earth is His footstool etc.
Instruments throughout time have been set aside as instruments for religious observances. There is also nothing wrong with consecrating things to God. Objects that have been set aside should be taken care of as the care we take of them signify the respect we have for God Himself. Does He need those items? Of course not. We however, need to respect God and those things we offer to Him including buildings for corporate worship. When they are consecrated to Him it does indeed become "His house".

Therefore when the priest consecrates the wafer it becomes holy? When a bishop consecrates the articles used in their mass, such as croiers, gowns, robes, and so forth, are they thereby God's? Is it possible that God doesn't want us to ADD to the religion he delivered to us? Did God anywhere command that we, under the New covenant, consecrate buildings to Him, and call them 'His House'? How far does this 'will-worship' go?

As to the various remarks concerning NT verses juxtaposed to OT verses allow me this indulgence:

Not sure who this is addressed to, as I did not make any remarks juxtaposing OT scriptures with NT scriptures. I did however juxtapose the Old COVENANT with the NEW covenant.

Just my thoughts from the cheap seats.

Well, you get what you pay for.