Getting on the screen.

Interesting explanation Lulapilgrim.  However, please explain the meaning of  the following and how you feel it relates to the "church":

Matthew 23 verses 16-22

"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, "Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound."  You blind fools!  for which is greater, the gold, or the temple which sanctifies the gold?  "And whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is upon it, he is bound."  Blind ones! for which is greater, the gift, or the altar which santifies the gift?  Therefore he who swears by the altar swears by it, and by all things that are on it; and he who swears by the temple swears by it, and by him who dwells in it.  And he who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits upon it."

Immediately afterwards Jesus tells the apostles of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem.  So it would seem that the "temple" as a building is not important.  So what may I ask do you think the temple that Jesus was speaking of, is? 

Jesus said this to his apostles regarding the "leaven of the Pharisees":

Luke 12 verses 1-3

"Now when immense crowds had gathered together, so that they were treading on one another, he began to say to his disciples, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.  But there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, and nothing hidden that will not be made known.  For what you have said in darkness will be said in the light; and what you have whispered in the inner chambers will be preached on the housetops."

What do you think that the apostles were whispering in the inner chambers?  And what do you think they were saying in the darkness that they did not say in the light? 

Whisper2

Just like the Church, the Temple as a building was important.

We find the Bible uses the the word "temple" in many ways always signifying a place where GOd dwells. The Temple was the building that stood in Jerusalem until 70AD. Almighty God did dwell in the Old Covenant Temple until the Temple Veil was rent from top to bottom at the moment of Christ's death on the Cross.  

When Jesus stood in the Temple courtyard He used a different understanding of "temple". He spoke of His own physical Body, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." St.John 2:19. Even His disciples didn't understand this at the time but they did leter ...they recognized it as a clear reference to His Crucifixion and Resurrection. On the other hand, the Jews confused His remarks, thinking Jesus was referring to Herod's Temple built of stone.

  From St.Matt. 26:61 we learn the ultimate Temple is our Lord Jesus Christ.

As Our Lord's Sacred Body is a Temple, so is our body also a temple. "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?....So glorify God in your body" 1Cor. 6:19-20.

I hope you will agree that aside from Jesus, the greatest example of a human temple is His Blessed Mother Mary. She flawlessly housed God's Spirit in the same manner we do imperfectly. Her womb was actually the physical home of God the Son for 9 months. Scripture, Apoc. 11:19; 21:1,5 likens her to the new ark of the Covenant.

"God's temple in Heaven was opened, and the ark of His Covenant was seen within His Temple...And  a great portent appeared in Heaven, A Woman clothed with the sun....She brought forth a male Child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron."

Besides human temples, the Chruch is also a temple of God...it's made of human members but God's Spirit enlivens her. St.Paul teaches in Eph. 2:19-21, " You are....members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple of the living God; as god said, "I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people." 2Cor. 6:16; Ex. 25:8; Ezek. 37:27 

 There is one more temple in the OLd Testament....the earth or the whole universe.   

While I would agree that some translations are better than others, I have to wonder why you assume the Douay-Rhiems is the best one.  Certainly not because it is the oldest (I hope)?

I would say that the Geneva Bible is at least on par with the Douay-Rhiems, perhaps better as it does not include the Apocrypha.

(And just so we're clear, whether or not the Apocrypha actually belong in the Bible is not the point here.)

Here's St.Matt. 23:16-22 from the Douay Rheims.

16 Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor. 17 Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18 And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor. 19 Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it: 21 And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it: 22 And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

St.Matthew 23: 13-15 concerns woes concerning treatment of people and I'll come back to these later. Verses 16-22 are woes concerning Swearing or taking oaths and verses 23-28 are woes concerning hypocrisy and vereses 29-35 are woes concerning treatment of prophets.

The Verses 16-22 tells us that the Pharisees were fond of making solemn oaths which by appearances bound them to strict codes of discipline and so onlookers were impressed by their austerity and self sacrifice. But the Pharisees had no intention of keeping the oath. The Pharisee, if confronted by someone, would escape the commitment by claiming the oath wasn't valid unless it was sworn by the Gold of the Temple, not the Temple itself. 

now back to verses 13-15, according to the Douay Rheims...

11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. 13 But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. 14 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment. 15 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

Here it is according to the NRSV, notice verse 14 is omitted....

13 ‘But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them.^{* 15}Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell^* as yourselves.

Same thing with the RSV, NIV, NAB, and NJB..verse 14 is omitted in each of these.

AUDIAFOX POSTS:

If someone wants the true Word of God in the English language, then read Douay Rheims Bible. It is hands down the most accurate, the best and safest word-by word translation from the originals. The reason is simple....becasue the translation come from St. Jerome a consummate linguistic genious imo Almighty God raised up for this very purpose in 405AD. Greek speaking from birth, knew Hebrew and Latin perfectly, and had many manuscriptus to work from that are no longer extant and was 1600 years closer to the writing of the New Testament than any of today's scholars.

St.Jerome's translation is what the Holy Bible actually says and not his interpretation of what the BIble means (which is basically what all the Protestant translations are...someone's private interpretation of what the words mean.).

Ha, I'll give you the Geneva Bible has St.Matt. 23: 14!

One of my prime indicators as far as Scriptural translation accuracy is St.Luke 1:28, the Douay rheims, has it as the angel greeting the Blessed Virgin Mary as "Hail, full of grace..."

The Geneva Bible has it as "Hail thou that art freely beloved,..." Big, big difference.  

As soon as Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Chruch in 1534 and started the Chruch of England under his own supremcy, Cranmer ordered an English translation be made, Turns out the BIble had been translated into English before this but he wanted his own translation. In 1539, the "Great Bible" was translated. Richard Taverner published another one that same year. In 1560 the Geneva Bible was published but these translations had many errors so that by 1568 a revised version was published called the Bishops's Bible. This was reprinted in 1572 with many corrections and amendments, called the Matthew Parker's Bible. IN 1611, the King James' Bible (also called the "Authorized Version") was published but even this version was corrected in 1683, 1769, and 1806. Critics pointed out that error s still were found and in 1885, a "Revised Version" was completed which contains over 35, 000 alterations from the "Authorized Version".

 No...to all Protestant versions as far as accuracy, I'll stick with the Douay Rheims.

Then why even bring it up?

Anyway, I am always amused by Protestants', following in lockstep with their forefathers, claim that the Holy Bible is the sole source and guide of Faith, when they cut it short passages like St.Matt. 23:14 and 7 Old Testament books. Talk about working with half a deck.

Heh, yeah I don't understand why some of the other translations don't have it.  My NIV just skips from 13 to 15.  Apparently something about using zeal for extortion rubbed a few people the wrong way.

I would agree that some translations are worse than others.

I appreciate your explanation of the Douay-Rhiems translation.  I just wonder now if it is the same Douay-Rhiems today as it was then.  As you said, the KJV underwent 35,000 alterations from its original form - who is to say that the Douay-Rhiems has not had the same?  It may not have been as obvious, but there is nothing that says it couldn't have happened.  Many published books these days go through several editions before going out of print, but they're still considered the exact same book.

Also, I'm tempted to say that a good number of the "errors in translation" found in Protestant Bibles were, in fact, the result of money-wielding people who didn't like what they read.  Matthew 23:14's vanishing act is hardly a correction of a translation error.

Basically what I'm saying is that in this point in history I'm not sure any single translation can be considered "authoritative."  The Douay-Rhiems may be closer than the ludicrous number of other translations out there, but I doubt even it has survived all these centuries without change - especially since in its inception, the Douay-Rhiems would have been copied entirely by hand.

I was merely making the point that not everyone agrees with the use of the Apocrypha.

And anyway, it's pretty silly to belittle the Protestant founders for excluding those books.  Their mission was to ensure that the books had either been written by prophets, apostles, and/or people close to prophets and apostles.  Basically, they were merely trying to ensure that what they were reading really was the inspired word of God.  The Apocrypha may be inspired, but on the other hand they might not be.

So, that's my 2¢, take it as you will.

"Just like the Church, the Temple as a building was important.

We find the Bible uses the the word "temple" in many ways always signifying a place where GOd dwells. The Temple was the building that stood in Jerusalem until 70AD. Almighty God did dwell in the Old Covenant Temple until the Temple Veil was rent from top to bottom at the moment of Christ's death on the Cross."

I must disagree with you Lulapilgrim.   God does not dwell in buildings, not temple buildings nor church buildings.  God dwells in man, as is stated in Genesis 6:3:  "And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh; and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."  There is no other place in the texts where God states God dwells elsewhere.  But tell me, which is more important to God do you think; the temple made of the material things of the earth or the people who come inside to worship and recall their link with God? 

But lets say for arguments sake the temple at Jerusalem was the dwelling place of God, do you think that at it's destruction that God no longer dwells with the hebrew nation that God promised to always dwell with?  If not, why do you think God would break a promise, which is what a convenant is?  If you don't think that God's promise to the hebrew nation is not broken, where do you think that God dwells with them now since they have no temple?  Do you think that perhaps God transfered God's dwelling place to Rome and a different building?  If so why did Jesus say where two or more of you are gathered in my name I shall be there?  I don't recall Jesus saying you must build me a building before I can be with you, or am I missing something?  I guess what I'm trying to ask you is why do you attach such importance to a building, any building? 

I am of the mind that the temple of the hebrews was symbolic of something else.  I am of the mind that the temple symbolized physical man and the altar the spirit of God that dwells within man, the finer spiritual stuff of which he is made.   The veil symbolizes the flaming sword that was placed before the paradise of pleasure that was designed to prevent man from putting forth his hand, and taking also of the tree of life, in order to eat, and live for ever.  What lay behind the veil was that "unknown" knowledge of the tree of life, and man as he was could not see it, or know it.   The sacrifice and willing death of Jesus tore that veil, and made what was once unknowable for man now possible to be known by him, the subsequent resurrection of Jesus was the proof of it. 

Umm... you might want to clarify what you meant here.

What is there that you think needs clarification?  When God indicates that God's spirit can not dwell in man for more than 120 years, it is a definate indication that God's spirit does dwell in man, even if for a short period of time.  When God's spirit no longer dwells in man, man dies. 

I apologize for taking so long to respond.....I've been been busy getting our home ready to move in.....hopefully, early December.   

Scripture speaks of Almighty God dwelling in the "tabernacle"....

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11247

Yes, true....."Spirit" refers to the "breathe of life" of Gen. 2:7, 6:17, 7:15, 22. Remember man's soul is immortal so this is the physical death, however, besides physical death; there is also spritual death.

God's Spirit was mentioned in Gen. 1:2 that hovered over the void and turned darkness into light. So, here God's spirit, providis grace where men can reform from their evil ways and leniency when they sin upon repentence.

Genesis 6:3 has other meanings as well. Note chapter 6 recounts Noe's Flood. And why did God send the Flood...becasue of man's utter wickedness. God's Spirit will soon be withdrawn becasue man has shown that he desires to remain in the flesh and will not ascend to the heights God had planned for him.

If you'll notice man's lifespan before the Flood was well beyond 120 years...in the hundreds of years and it would now be reduced to 120 years.     

The 120 years context also points to the time being left until God's Spirit would cease to tolerate man's wickedness extending one last hope of repentance to the world through Noah.

Is it not possible do you think, that the "tabernacle" that you mention is the body of man?  That the erecting of a building called the "tabernacle" was simply a physical reminder of the "true tabernacle" for the Hebrews?  A place that when they entered it for worship they would be reminded of the connection between themselves and God, and served to focus their attention upon that fact?

Yes I am aware of death, and "the death", and that there is difference between the two.  I am also aware that the extended lifetimes that are mentioned in the bible can only be because they must be the lifetimes of those before they became flesh, since God states afterwards that because man has become flesh, God can not dwell with him more than 120 years.  

Which brings me to another peculiar statement made in the same chapter, that of "He created them male and female; and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."  Genesis 5:2.  In Genesis it is stated that the woman that the Lord God created from the rib of Adam was named Eve by Adam, and it gives the general impression that there were two separate individual beings.  Yet here they are referred to by God as one being called "Adam", indicative of their being not two but one entity. 

 
When one considers what God said about man "having become flesh" and God being unable to dwell in man for more than 120 years because of it, it seems to indicate that neither Adam or Eve were ever "flesh", nor were they ever separate individual beings, and as a matter of fact nowhere in Genesis are they referred to as being separate individuals.  The statement of Jesus's indicating that in heaven man will be as angels neither marrying nor being given in marriage seems to uphold that above statement made by God of their name being Adam. 

Many will say that they were individual beings and that since Eve was created of Adam, they are essentially the same being, but that doesn't explain the statement of God's calling both by the name of Adam, since God knew that Adam had named his help mate "Eve".  If there were indeed two separate beings why would God not refer to each of them by name?   What is your explanation for this seemingly apparent contradiction?

 I'm glad you've returned, but I never doubted that you wouldn't,  I don't get the impression that you are quite as afraid as KFC is in having your understanding of the scriptures questioned, since your faith seems to be much stronger and much more able to withstand such scrutiny than hers.   By the way, I hope that all will go smoothly for you in your move to a new home.