Pillars..

[duxrow]

The Temple of Solomon had two (2) pillars.. they even had names! Boaz & Jachin, one left, one right..

:woah: Two pillars led the Israeli's: one of Fire, one of Cloud, one for Day, other for Night.

Two pillars were what Samson was chained to -- that Temple came down when Samson pulled on the pillars.

Now in New Covenant times, WE are a Temple that walks on two legs.. and WE are Pillars of Salt (maybe?) -- have you been tripped up lately, or had your leg pulled? :winking0071:

2Cor6:16 KJV "And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people".

[duxrow]

A DIFFERENT WALK!
"Go take a walk" is what we say,
to those we wish would go away..
We'd recommend a longer stroll
if they'd just keep on going..
And if the pier's a short one,
They could very soon be flowing! :p

The Scripture walk that's talked
about from Enoch to the end,
Means following His commandments
and making Him your friend.
Walking with your hand in His
by learning all he's written,
Then standing up and going forth
but never, ever, sittin'!

Jacob's Walk was different after
wrestling The Man..
It takes that kind of wrestling
if you want to understand.
You don't know what Trouble is
until your walk gets sleazy.
Jacob's Trouble was travailing
cause birthing isn't easy..

We can walk like Jacob walked,
Raising his New Name high.. (Israel)
We can walk like Enoch walked,
So then we'll never die!

Isaiah did it barefoot, but we
must wear the shoes..
The learning of The Word is
something not to be refused!

Peter's walk sure pleased the Lord..
(He didn't just fall overboard..)
Walk in wisdom and in the light
That's the way to "Walk in White"

There's more to this than meets
the eye, but in case you're walking South,
The Scripture teaches this besides:
Don't walk with foot in mouth!


After Jacob had wrestled the angel, Gen32, scripture tells us his thigh was 'touched', and it's likely that his "walk" was altered at that time. If you're going to talk-the-talk, it's important to also walk-the-walk. (Obedience to The Word).
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3062-WALK-by-Faith&p=43972#post43972

[duxrow]

Note how Boaz is in the King Line of the House of David, Ru4:18, while Jachin is a Priest according to 1Chr9:10, and so the King/Priest designation are 'pillars' of the Temple. 1K7:21

:yo: The name Jachin means 'God will establish, or founding', and Boaz means 'God is strength'. Jachin was apparently the 4th son of Simeon, but nothing(?) is written of him personally. The only Boaz we know of, is from the Book of Ruth. These two pillars of the OT may set a precedent for how Moses and Jesus are mediators and 'pillars' of Christianity, as seen from the Timeline perspective.

1082

Rev5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
In the OT they couldn't be both, as Uzziah (2Chr26:16) and Saul discovered after trying to usurp the priest duties. We see the King Line in Matthew-1 progresses from David's son Solomon , and the Priest Line in Luke-3 through his son Nathan the Prophet.

[David M]

Hello Dux

We see the King Line in Matthew-1 progresses from David's son Solomon , and the Priest Line in Luke-3 through his son Nathan the Prophet.
It is interesting to note that the text/story where Nathan is sent to King David to show him the error of his ways that the family connection is kept out of this. This has nothing to do with family and the office of priest and king are separate and transcend family.

It must have been doubly hard for David to be exposed of his crime by his own son. Nathan has to deliver the message and do it without sparing his father's feelings.

I was reminded recently of the incident were Aaron has to watch his two sons get scorched to death. Aaron had to look on while his two sons who had done wrong were severely condemned by God. It must have been a hard thing for Aaron to watch and not show his emotion. The text simply says; Aaron held his peace.

When it comes to the law, the righteous judge shows no emotion in administering the death penalty. We have the example of where God pleads with his people to repent and turn from their ways, which were an abomination to him. The people did not repent and they did not earn God's pity, so God showed none.

For the abomination of going after other gods, God did not show any mercy in his punishment. Here is one example (Exk5:11); Wherefore, as I live, saith the Lord GOD; Surely, because thou hast defiled my sanctuary with all thy detestable things, and with all thine abominations, therefore will I also diminish thee; neither shall mine eye spare, neither will I have any pity.

David

[duxrow]

Yeah David, The two sons of Eli (no girls), like the two sons of Aaron (no girls), like Noah, like Abraham, like Judah -- is this a pattern of some kind?
:chores015: Do the 4 daughters of Philip figure somehow?

[David M]

Hello Dux

Yeah David, The two sons of Eli (no girls), like the two sons of Aaron (no girls), like Noah, like Abraham, like Judah -- is this a pattern of some kind?
:chores015: Do the 4 daughters of Philip figure somehow? We have not heard from Bob May for a long time. If you are reading the Bob, please join in.

I think Bob might see some allegory in all this. I am thinking of my conversation with Ruby at the moment, in which we are discussing the subject of 'The Woman', as mentioned by the Apostle Paul, and is also brought up into the story of Samson and which Ruby is identifying "the woman" with "the Eve soul".


Philip's daughters were, it should be noted, virgins. They had kept themselves pure, (untainted with sexual union with a man). In that sense, Jesus was also a virgin and Jesus was without blemish (pure), and was the was only acceptable sacrifice as the substitute lamb, to pay the price for the sins of the world (from which we are all tainted).


Thinking back to the genealogies listed in Genesis chapter 5, we are all told that there were born sons and daughters with the exception of Noah when that generation listed came to an end.

The wives of the three sons of Noah came from the daughters of the men listed contemporary with Noah; the daughters did not come from Noah.

Whilst I am thinking of this, and my discussion of The Woman with Ruby as though the Eve (Woman) Soul is allegorically different to the Adam (Man) Soul. I am also seeing how this fits in with the two separate seeds that stem from Eve and the Serpent. This is why I have asked Ruby to explain what she understands by the Serpent and for that matter, the Devil and Satan. (Genesis 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; Here we have the beginning of two types of seed (all human of course).

We are next presented with the phrase in Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men. This is leading up to the time Noah. We have already been told that those named in the genealogies were having sons and daughters (all natural offspring).

We are introduced to the sons of God. At this point, there is nothing to suggest we are not talking about humans, for everything so far has been in that context. We can come to see that sons could refer to the line of Seth, that replaced the murdered Abel and daughters came to represent the line descended from Cain who murdered Abel. From the time of Seth's son Enos, we are told that men began; to call upon the name of the Lord I do not think this is when men started to blaspheme God. I read all the other times this expression is used and did not find it meant in that way. I think we can rule out any definition of the word that is associated with blasphemy and stick with the other meanings of the word.

Two things are going on from this time. The first is that men call on the name of God, but that is not lasting, it is like the line of Seth gets diminished as now that line marries the daughters of men. Two things begin to happen. The men who are calling on the name of God and who could be considered as ordinary men, are being outweighed by the sons born to the daughters of men that were becoming renown. They are becoming famous for something; famous to the point of becoming "giants" by reputation. Their reputation might not have been anything for good, but the opposite. Something was going on which God could not let continue. (Gen 6:5) And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Maybe these "giants" were famous for their infamy.

So we come to the point where God saves the only righteous man and his family (not perfect but the best remaining). So the population is restarted but with the traits that had descended from Adam and Eve.

Following possibly two themes, the first; the seed of the Woman and the the seed of the Serpent, then the Adam Soul and the Woman Soul, can these two themes be harmonized? I am still considering Ruby's line of thinking.

We are all descended from both Adam and Eve and there is no difference in the minds of men and women. The Bible specifically states (1 Cor 15:22); For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.. We are presented with two men. The first man Adam, represents the "old man". The second man Christ, represents the "new man". Both men and women have to put off "the old man" with his deeds and put on "the new man" after Christ and his deeds. Here is another way Paul describes what Jesus did (Eph 2:15); Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

That was the way Jesus defeated the Devil. Through his death, having been raised up to be given and incorruptible body that is not subject to the temptation of the flesh, the Devil did not win and destroy the soul of Jesus in the grave.

All this applies to women as much as men, and there is no bias against women. The gift of God is to all (Rom 6:23); .. the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Whichever theme we follow; the seed of the woman, or the seed of the serpent; the sons of God, or the daughters of men; the Adam soul, or the Eve soul; it has to be along the lines that there are two camps and we have to decide which camp we want to be in. As I heard it said; "the safest place (camp) to be is in the will of God". Either we are in that camp, or we are in some other camp that is not in the will of God.

All the best

David

[duxrow]

Hello Dux
We have not heard from Bob May for a long time. If you are reading the Bob, please join in.

I think Bob might see some allegory in all this. I am thinking of my conversation with Ruby at the moment, in which we are discussing the subject of 'The Woman', as mentioned by the Apostle Paul, and is also brought up into the story of Samson and which Ruby is identifying "the woman" with "the Eve soul".


We are introduced to the sons of God. At this point, there is nothing to suggest we are not talking about humans, for everything so far has been in that context.
Agree..I'm thinking 'hindsight' from 1John3. We can come to see that sons could refer to the line of Seth, that replaced the murdered Abel and daughters came to represent the line descended from Cain who murdered Abel. From the time of Seth's son Enos, we are told that men began; to call upon the name of the Lord I do not think this is when men started to blaspheme God. I read all the other times this expression is used and did not find it meant in that way.
Not in my opinion -- this is only 4 generations from Enoch who prophesies of the coming of the Lord; in response to the atheist doctrine..

So we come to the point where God saves the only righteous man and his family (not perfect but the best remaining). So the population is restarted but with the traits that had descended from Adam and Eve.
Gen6:9 where Noah said to be "perfect in his generations"(pl) - the three 'Ten Generations' + 3 skips leading to David#33.


Whichever theme we follow; the seed of the woman, or the seed of the serpent; the sons of God, or the daughters of men; the Adam soul, or the Eve soul; it has to be along the lines that there are two camps and we have to decide which camp we want to be in. As I heard it said; "the safest place (camp) to be is in the will of God". Either we are in that camp, or we are in some other camp that is not in the will of God. DavidRight! Come in, Bob May.. Jesus speaks of "this generation" in Matt24:34 and I think it's the 500 years of Noah before his kids were born. They were all centurions by the time the Deluge came. http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/Noah.htm

As Richard would say; Nice chatting.. have a good day. l/s/ dux :yo:

[David M]

Hello Dux


Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
We can come to see that sons could refer to the line of Seth, that replaced the murdered Abel and daughters came to represent the line descended from Cain who murdered Abel. From the time of Seth's son Enos, we are told that men began; to call upon the name of the Lord I do not think this is when men started to blaspheme God. I read all the other times this expression is used and did not find it meant in that way.


Not in my opinion -- this is only 4 generations from Enoch who prophesies of the coming of the Lord; in response to the atheist doctrine..

Good point Dux. A transition obviously took place. Even Cain had some communication from God and Cain was the first generation from Adam.

In all the other references where we have these exact same words, they are not in the context you think applies to the first time they are used. For example, this is the last of the uses of the phrase as written by the Apostle Paul (Rom 10:13 ) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.


Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
So we come to the point where God saves the only righteous man and his family (not perfect but the best remaining). So the population is restarted but with the traits that had descended from Adam and Eve.


Gen6:9 where Noah said to be "perfect in his generations"(pl) - the three 'Ten Generations' + 3 skips leading to David#33.
Compared to absolute perfectness and displayed by the Son of God, Noah could not have been perfect. But compared to his generations, he was that. The same is said of Job (1:1); There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. (Incidentally, Job had seven sons and three daughters. Any significance in that?)
It was not until later that the Satan comes out in Job. Job did not remain absolutely perfect. Jesus did not fall for the same mistake as Job.

All the best
David

[duxrow]

Supporting PILLARS..

Rev3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God.."
Boaz and Jachin were the two pillars at the entrance of King Solomon's Temple, but these 'pillars' were free-standing and didn't support the building in any way. They were DIFFERENT from the pillars that Samson pulled down; just as the pillars on this diagram don't physically support it..

1230

[duxrow]

Attn dpenn, We spoke of this the other day: King-Priest (like Melchizedek)
Note how Boaz is in the King Line of the House of David, while Jachin is a Priest according to 1Chr9:10, and so the King/Priest designation are 'pillars' of the Temple. 1K7:21

[dpenn]

Attn dpenn, We spoke of this the other day: King-Priest (like Melchizedek)
Note how Boaz is in the King Line of the House of David, while Jachin is a Priest according to 1Chr9:10, and so the King/Priest designation are 'pillars' of the Temple. 1K7:21

Dux,

I know you spoke of this, but it is not clear from any text that Nathan is the priestly genealogy. That is the danger of getting a little too caught up in imaginative symbolism. It may or may not be true, and to insist different is to say we are privy to revelation that is not open and clear to others. I enjoyed our work in trying to come to grips with the genealogy of David through Solomon, but there were Scriptures we could use to argue that one out. But here, we might be mixing in a few horse feathers, unintentionally.

I suspect that the names had more to do with the pillars than the actual people with those names, especially since Jachin in the priestly line is so insignificant from the Scriptures (not to say he wasn't a wonderful and obedient priest). And, as for Nathan being King David's son, as mentioned by David, it is very doubtful that he is the prophet who rebuked King David in his sin. I think that would be stated clearly if it were the case.

I also would be a little careful applying the 6 days of creation like you did previously. There again, it is interesting to play with numbers and themes this way, but suddenly you become the new revelation like Kenneth Copeland, or Benny Hinn, or Kim Clement.

I remain inclined to think that both Matthew and Luke represent actual and royal lines from David to Jesus (and to Adam, in the case of Luke). I also believe that the Bible says that Christians are kings and priests to God. But I that is clearly stated.

By the way, you got my attention, but I am not standing at attention!:lol:

dp

[duxrow]

Dux,

I know you spoke of this, but it is not clear from any text that Nathan is the priestly genealogy. That is the danger of getting a little too caught up in imaginative symbolism. It may or may not be true, and to insist different is to say we are privy to revelation that is not open and clear to others. I enjoyed our work in trying to come to grips with the genealogy of David through Solomon, but there were Scriptures we could use to argue that one out. But here, we might be mixing in a few horse feathers, unintentionally.

I suspect that the names had more to do with the pillars than the actual people with those names, especially since Jachin in the priestly line is so insignificant from the Scriptures (not to say he wasn't a wonderful and obedient priest). And, as for Nathan being King David's son, as mentioned by David, it is very doubtful that he is the prophet who rebuked King David in his sin. I think that would be stated clearly if it were the case.

I also would be a little careful applying the 6 days of creation like you did previously. There again, it is interesting to play with numbers and themes this way, but suddenly you become the new revelation like Kenneth Copeland, or Benny Hinn, or Kim Clement.

I remain inclined to think that both Matthew and Luke represent actual and royal lines from David to Jesus (and to Adam, in the case of Luke). I also believe that the Bible says that Christians are kings and priests to God. But I that is clearly stated.

By the way, you got my attention, but I am not standing at attention!:lol:

dpAt Ease, dpen, :lol: No Problem, Mohn, as they say in Jamaica. My fault for not spelling it out more clearly, but am personally convinced and it'll be there on my website if anyone wants to check. Don't know Clement, but have attended some Copeland meetings in Fort Worth, and once went to Benny Hinn meeting in Orlando (before he moved to Big D). Charles Capps has some good stuff, I think, mostly concerning power of the tongue.
WHAT about the 6 days of Creation? I don't recall that topic being discussed except for my thought about
Adam letting Eve eat first, so he could see if she really died that day! hah. No, that's just for grins, although
I DO believe Adam withheld info from her.
Sayonara for now.. /s/ dux