|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 12, 2020 8:48:03 GMT -6
venge , I remember hearing from Dr. Missler talking about blaspheme. He described it as taking on the name of God as a woman takes the husband's name in marriage. God set apart the Jews from the nations as His inheritance. The Jews in this act "took the name of God." But taking the name of God in vain... you're sleeping around. Idolatry. Adultery. Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Just something to think about. When the AC takes the place of God, yea, that would do it. Psalm 18.
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 13, 2020 6:01:00 GMT -6
venge , I remember hearing from Dr. Missler talking about blaspheme. He described it as taking on the name of God as a woman takes the husband's name in marriage. God set apart the Jews from the nations as His inheritance. The Jews in this act "took the name of God." But taking the name of God in vain... you're sleeping around. Idolatry. Adultery. Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; Just something to think about. When the AC takes the place of God, yea, that would do it. Psalm 18. That is an interesting thought. So, because we are to be holy and blameless...continuance in sin (active) causes the blasphemy. Reminds me of believers that cry out Lord Lord and he says depart from me ye who work iniquity |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 13, 2020 6:50:03 GMT -6
venge , uscgvet that is a better way to understand Ex 20:7 in my opinion You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave anyone unpunished who takes His name in vain. And I often do not recall, nor heard others speak the second half of the verse! take נָשָׂא - 5375 - nasa or nasah - lift, take, carry It implies bringing it along with. Note the verse doesnt say or allude to speaking the name of the Lord in vain. (not advocating that just making a point to the meaning, after all His very name is holy). Look at how its used here Lev 7:18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.When I consider people who claim to be "christian" I keep this in mind. Not to observe their language but their character & conduct. Recently I heard Joe Biden say something to the affect of being a man of faith. Yet his conduct does not match this. If he does bear the name of the Lord....
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 13, 2020 7:24:50 GMT -6
This is a very intriguing topic. You guys have given me deep insight to blasphemy in a marriage with Christ. Much to think about.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 13, 2020 7:28:22 GMT -6
This is a very intriguing topic. You guys have given me deep insight to blasphemy in a marriage with Christ. Much to think about. Throw this verse in to the mix when you think further (if you havent already) 2Tim 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 13, 2020 9:22:52 GMT -6
This is a very intriguing topic. You guys have given me deep insight to blasphemy in a marriage with Christ. Much to think about. That's exactly how I felt when I heard it from Dr. Missler. But, mike also has a point. And We see an actual use case of blaspheme in 2 Samuel 12 with King David. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. It was a public humiliation of God. |
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 13, 2020 17:17:54 GMT -6
This is a very intriguing topic. You guys have given me deep insight to blasphemy in a marriage with Christ. Much to think about. That's exactly how I felt when I heard it from Dr. Missler. But, mike also has a point. And We see an actual use case of blaspheme in 2 Samuel 12 with King David. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. It was a public humiliation of God. Hmm Also interesting because he did what the gentiles do, and did restrained not his flesh, thereby bringing shame upon his people which are under God and a poor testimony of their separation and differences from those nations. Soo many people claim they are Christian, taking the name of Christ and his Father. And yet, they live in the world. Blasphemous...never thought of it like that |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 16, 2020 18:32:22 GMT -6
I understand the "pride" before fall perspective. But the fall was real. The punishment is real. Why is the act just from the heart and mouth? Abraham was justified by his works - per James 2. Wouldn't the lawless one also be condemned by his works? Is it just unfaith that gets him condemned? Not the actual action of sitting in the seat of God? How does James put it? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Wouldn't this work both ways? 1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. ------------- Edit, The questions I asked above was more of me talking to God, asking Him. Then later I found this: Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Hmm. Words can do it. venge , you might be right brother. I was looking at the context of the verse...and that is how I saw it and I tried to deviate from that stance to a literal one (actually sitting)..but every way I tried, with this specific Ezekiel verse, I didn't find it to work. That is why I looked at the historical context that the temple was destroyed and Ezekiel was exiled in that time. That area was still guarded and wouldn't allow a non Jew into it. My attempt to look at every facet, even if another commentator suggested it was possible and their reasoning for it, but none differed. Though I am very aware of many verses on our words (especially in Proverbs), I forgot about the one in Matthew you posted. But let me be clear, I am not right - this is not a win or a I told you so. I wanted us to talk about it, to look at it deeply with sincerity and not to let our own ideas get in the way of what was trying to be conveyed. I am happy when we can all agree on something, like faith, where we see the scripture unfold and tell its story. We all win in doing so and it breaks down the barrier of I believe this and you believe this or in another thread I agree to disagree. If we want the truth, we need to discuss the truth like a bible sunday school class should be (but most times is not) and ask the question people are afraid to that they don't offend others. Obviously, I offend and strike nerves lol but my position is not to get a rise out of people, its to get them to look from another angle outside what they are used to, what they are told to...and in many ways, that is how Christ did it to the people. I just found some old notes of mine on Amos 9:11 and Acts 15:16. Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: My notes were about the differences between the two where James seems to be adding "After this I will return" to the text or where he quoted it from, which sounds like after the 2nd coming of Christ, but the original text of Amos 9 has "In that day" which is before the 2nd coming of Christ. This strengthens the idea that the "physical" 3rd Temple will be built as a building of wood and stone before the 2nd coming. It's hard to argue against. |
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 16, 2020 21:03:04 GMT -6
I was looking at the context of the verse...and that is how I saw it and I tried to deviate from that stance to a literal one (actually sitting)..but every way I tried, with this specific Ezekiel verse, I didn't find it to work. That is why I looked at the historical context that the temple was destroyed and Ezekiel was exiled in that time. That area was still guarded and wouldn't allow a non Jew into it. My attempt to look at every facet, even if another commentator suggested it was possible and their reasoning for it, but none differed. Though I am very aware of many verses on our words (especially in Proverbs), I forgot about the one in Matthew you posted. But let me be clear, I am not right - this is not a win or a I told you so. I wanted us to talk about it, to look at it deeply with sincerity and not to let our own ideas get in the way of what was trying to be conveyed. I am happy when we can all agree on something, like faith, where we see the scripture unfold and tell its story. We all win in doing so and it breaks down the barrier of I believe this and you believe this or in another thread I agree to disagree. If we want the truth, we need to discuss the truth like a bible sunday school class should be (but most times is not) and ask the question people are afraid to that they don't offend others. Obviously, I offend and strike nerves lol but my position is not to get a rise out of people, its to get them to look from another angle outside what they are used to, what they are told to...and in many ways, that is how Christ did it to the people. I just found some old notes of mine on Amos 9:11 and Acts 15:16. Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: My notes were about the differences between the two where James seems to be adding "After this I will return" to the text or where he quoted it from, which sounds like after the 2nd coming of Christ, but the original text of Amos 9 has "In that day" which is before the 2nd coming of Christ. This strengthens the idea that the "physical" 3rd Temple will be built as a building of wood and stone before the 2nd coming. It's hard to argue against. If only Paul or Christ spoke of a literal brick\mortar third temple...but neither did. We have 1 verse that some think it means that it’ll be rebuilt. Not very conclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 17, 2020 5:53:16 GMT -6
I just found some old notes of mine on Amos 9:11 and Acts 15:16. Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: My notes were about the differences between the two where James seems to be adding "After this I will return" to the text or where he quoted it from, which sounds like after the 2nd coming of Christ, but the original text of Amos 9 has "In that day" which is before the 2nd coming of Christ. This strengthens the idea that the "physical" 3rd Temple will be built as a building of wood and stone before the 2nd coming. It's hard to argue against. If only Paul or Christ spoke of a literal brick\mortar third temple...but neither did. We have 1 verse that some think it means that it’ll be rebuilt. Not very conclusive. Yes, the Lord did speak of a literal wood and stone house. Zechariah 5. "the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name". So there are more than 1 verses. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Aug 17, 2020 16:59:07 GMT -6
Both Jesus and Paul mention a physical temple, but only if a person takes the words literally.
Matthew 24:15 So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)...
Something will take place that makes the Holy Place (the Temple) unclean.
Something visible that the reader will understand and know to flee from Judea.
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 17, 2020 17:41:25 GMT -6
Both Jesus and Paul mention a physical temple, but only if a person takes the words literally. Matthew 24:15 So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)... Something will take place that makes the Holy Place (the Temple) unclean. Something visible that the reader will understand and know to flee from Judea. Not that I disagree... I agree with you, but... If you also take it literally, "the holy place" can also be your body, as Jesus quite literally died from false testimony of people claiming that Christ was going to destroy the Temple and raise it in 3 days, but Jesus was referring to his body... not the building. |
|
|
|
Post by inaweofhim on Aug 17, 2020 17:42:07 GMT -6
Both Jesus and Paul mention a physical temple, but only if a person takes the words literally. Matthew 24:15 So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)... Something will take place that makes the Holy Place (the Temple) unclean. Something visible that the reader will understand and know to flee from Judea. Anonymous {DW} over in the article about Covenant with Death posted a very intriguing article on the "temple." www.messiahofisraelministries.org/a-new-temple-has-to-be-rebuilt-for-jesus-to-return/It makes one re-think the words. And the passages that mention "tabernacle of David" state a tabernacle which is different than a temple. David's tabernacle was a tent-like structure, wasn't it? One day we will know for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Aug 17, 2020 18:04:43 GMT -6
Both Jesus and Paul mention a physical temple, but only if a person takes the words literally. Matthew 24:15 So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)... Something will take place that makes the Holy Place (the Temple) unclean. Something visible that the reader will understand and know to flee from Judea. Anonymous {DW} over in the article about Covenant with Death posted a very intriguing article on the "temple." www.messiahofisraelministries.org/a-new-temple-has-to-be-rebuilt-for-jesus-to-return/It makes one re-think the words. And the passages that mention "tabernacle of David" state a tabernacle which is different than a temple. David's tabernacle was a tent-like structure, wasn't it? One day we will know for sure. It's a shame that Pastor Carl doesn't cover Zechariah 5 in his article. He might change his tune. He uses Jesus' allusions to Daniel but avoids John's very obvious allusions to Zechariah in Revelation. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Aug 17, 2020 18:20:33 GMT -6
Both Jesus and Paul mention a physical temple, but only if a person takes the words literally. Matthew 24:15 So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)... Something will take place that makes the Holy Place (the Temple) unclean. Something visible that the reader will understand and know to flee from Judea. Not that I disagree... I agree with you, but... If you also take it literally, "the holy place" can also be your body, as Jesus quite literally died from false testimony of people claiming that Christ was going to destroy the Temple and raise it in 3 days, but Jesus was referring to his body... not the building. Yes, true, but in context...in Matthew Jesus is referencing Daniel; He's not speaking of His body. They also would have known their history and connected His words to that previous event. |
|
