- Nov 25, 2017
- 4,861
- 1,022
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Your question is invalid because it is outside the Scripture evidence of the usage of Greek 'naos'.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You didn't answer the question, so here it is again:
In what supporting instances did Paul refer to a physical temple?
Your question is invalid because it is outside the Scripture evidence of the usage of Greek 'naos'.
Using the NT to interpret the OT is "letting God's word interpret God's word".
Then provide us with the Scripture evidence of all of Paul's uses of "naos".
Sorry, child play time is over.
Agreed. So be a man and provide us with the Scripture evidence of all of Paul's uses of "naos".
Not always.
Often in the New Testament a prophetic event quoted from the Old Testament is just hinted at in the New Testament, with the greater details written in the Old Testament Books.
Just because the New Testament often quotes the Old, that doesn't automatically mean what is quoted is fulfilled already. There is still MUCH prophecy not yet fulfilled written in the Old Testament prophets. This is why Apostle Peter told us in the last days to be mindful also of what was written in the OT prophets (2 Peter 3:2).
You just made my Ignore list because of your childish behavior.
Yes, it always is. Now, does the NT mention every single OT verse? No, but the NT does shows us how OT passages are to be interpreted, whether literally or symbolically
The NT explicitly tells us what the OT prophesied about, thus the NT should be our frame of reference for interpreting the OT.
If the NT quotes an OT verse and states "fulfilled", then that definitely means it is fulfilled.
I would disagree that there is still "much" prophecy not yet fulfilled.
I believe the Bible is about Christ, thus I believe the majority of it fulfilled:
Imagine that. Requesting Scripture is childish behavior.
Do you have Scripture for that?
I don't know where you heard that, but just because the New Testament mentions a prophecy quoting from the Old Testament, that does NOT automatically mean it has been fulfilled. You should read this statement more carefully.
This Apostle Paul quoted from the OT prophet Haggai, and it has not yet come to pass today...
Heb 12:25-29
25 See that ye refuse not Him That speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him That spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him That speaketh from heaven:
26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, 'Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.'
27 And this word, 'Yet once more', signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
29 For our God is a consuming fire.
KJV
I'm not denying the NT includes witnesses of things from the OT that are fulfilled.
I'm simply saying NOT ALL OT SCRIPTURE QUOTED in the NT has been fulfilled. The Haggai 2/Hebrews 12 is only one type example.
Well that, clearly.
None of the Zechariah 14 chapter has happened yet.
None of the last nine chapters of Ezekiel have happened yet.
You can believe what you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean alignment with God's Word. The whole... Bible is about our Lord Jesus Christ, but that still does not prove it has all been fulfilled. Not everything written in God's Word is specifically about His death and resurrection.
I always find it so interesting when futurists of the dispensational nature refuse to provide evidence for their beliefs.
What will be really interesting, is how those who dismiss all the warnings and ignore all the plainly stated prophesies that tell us what God has planned for our future, will react when it all happens.I always find it so interesting when futurists of the dispensational nature refuse to provide evidence for their beliefs.
Yes, it always is. Now, does the NT mention every single OT verse? No, but the NT does show us how OT passages are to be interpreted, whether literally or symbolically
I always find it so interesting when futurists of the dispensational nature refuse to provide evidence for their beliefs.
I don't think you are either, otherwise you probably wouldn't be a Christian.
So per your example, you don't believe the saints have yet received/possessed/inherited the kingdom yet?
Now you are bearing false witness,
And here is another proof...
2 Peter 3:10
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
KJV
That is Apostle Peter quoting from the OT prophets about the ending of this present world on the "day of the Lord". It is still yet to happen.
I'm sorry, but am I speaking to an adult here? How old are you?
When speaking of the events prophesied in Hebrews 12 compared to Haggai 2 where it was quoted from, how does that revolve into the subject of whether the saints have received or inherited the kingdom yet?
The context of this was you not providing scripture to support your argument when JGR asked for it. So if I am "bearing false witness" please show the post where you provided scripture to support your argument against JGR. All I seem to find is you saying "Sorry, child play time is over." in post 104.
The greek word in this passage for elements is not in regards to the literal periodic table of elements but of:
4747 stoixeíon– properly, fundamentals, like with the basic components of a philosophy, structure, etc.; (figuratively) "first principles," like the basic fundamentals of Christianity.
[4747 (stoixeíon) refers to "the rudiments with which mankind . . . were indoctrinated (before the time of Christ), i.e. the elements of religious training or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles" (J. Thayer).
Thus the removal of the elements should be understood along the the removal of the old covenant principles, which would be consistent with Hebrews 12:27-29.
Do you believe the old covenant is still in affect? Or do you believe its rudiments have been destroyed?
It's always telling when one must resort to personal and derogatory remarks. Let's avoid these.
The author of Hebrews is contrasting the new and old covenants. Notice the contrast of the mountain that could not be touched with "But you have come to mount zion".
I agree with the Benson commentary on these verses that what is shaken was the destruction of Jerusalem and the removing of the old obsolete covenant in 66-70ad, so that only the gospel of the kingdom would remain.
"Hebrews 12:26-27. Whose voice — Namely, Christ’s, who appeared to Moses at the bush, gave the law, and conducted Israel through the wilderness; see on Exodus 3:2; Isaiah 63:9; 1 Corinthians 10:9; then shook the earth — When, at the giving of the law, he spoke from Sinai, and the whole mount quaked greatly, Exodus 19:18; but now — In the gospel times; he hath promised — Or declared, saying, (Haggai 2:6,) Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven — Meaning, probably, the abolition of the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple"
You're the one who made the suggestion (a false one) that when OT prophecy is quoted in the NT, then that means it is fulfilled. That is NOT true. And I proved it with Scripture examples. Now you're trying to back out of your argument.
The subject Peter is covering there in 2 Peter 3 is about the destructions that God has done over this earth's history. And that 2 Peter 3:10 verse is within a section of verses that is about the future... literal... destruction of this present world age by fire.
2 Peter 3:10-13
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
KJV
And guess what? Even in verse 13 there Peter is STILL... talking about a destruction by fire to come upon this earth. So your pulling out the word 'elements' to play around with that certainly does not work, but only shows you're not really serious about staying with the context of that chapter. And by the way, the Greek word for elements is put for the idea of rudiments of the world, like a world order. Yet Peter also proclaimed clearly about man's works being burned off the earth there, so you cannot escape the meaning nor the context of the subject there.
Sorry, but Peter wasn't talking about what Jesus nailed to His cross per Col.2. Peter was talking about the LAST DAY of this present world when Jesus comes on the "day of the Lord".
Do you not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is literally going to return to this earth how He ascended to Heaven? Do you not know what timing God's Word shows that will happen? Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth even ascended to Heaven?
Uh, you first. Yet me declaring something isn't Biblical nor written, or is a doctrine or tradition of men, is NOT a derogatory remark.
Much of the Book of Hebrews is indeed contrasting the old covenant vs. the New Covenant through Jesus Christ. No mystery there. But the latter part of Hebrews 12 is not about that. It instead is the subject of His Salvation with that phrase you quote there pointing to having come to it already, i.e., spiritually only though through Faith on Christ Jesus The New Covenant. And the subject then turns to a warning, "See that you refuse not Him That speaketh...".
At verse 25 to 29 the subject CHANGED to a quote from OT Haggai about the DESTRUCTION God is going to bring upon this earth on the last day of this present world. HUGE DIFFERENCE IN SUBJECT.
I do NOT... agree with the Benson Commentary. You can go find a Bible commentary for just about any kind of doctrine you want to believe today. The matter is, whether or not it agrees with God's Word as written, or not.
Heb 12:26-27
26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
27 And this word, 'Yet once more', signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
KJV
The subject there is the END of this present world, with the destruction upon this earth like 2 Peter 3 showed, by God's consuming fire. And there is a MULTITUDE of Bible Scripture parallels to confirm that is the subject there (Isaiah 2:18-19; Isaiah 13:13; Joel 3:16-17; Matthew 24:35; Isaiah 66:22; even Hebrews 1:10-12!).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?