postamble(); Greetings Katherine.

I apologize for my delay, but exams, work, and projects have kept me away from discussion forums.

Katherine wrote:  Andalus, Your next point: Katherine wrote: God "tabernacled" in the Temple meaning that God's presence was there.  In the same way, God tabernacled in the body of his Messiah Jesus. From you: <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> I Kings 8:27 For will God indeed dwell on the earth?  Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have built? My response: Interesting Chapter 1 Kings 8, isn't it? <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 27 �But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built! 28 Yet regard the prayer of Your servant and his supplication, O LORD my God, and listen to the cry and the prayer which Your servant is praying before You today: 29 that Your eyes may be open toward this temple night and day, toward the place of which You said, �My name shall be there,� that You may hear the prayer which Your servant makes toward this place. 30 And may You hear the supplication of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place. Hear in heaven Your dwelling place; and when You hear, forgive. Look at these verses from the same Chapter: 10 And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, 11 so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD. 12 Then Solomon spoke:       �The LORD said He would dwell in the dark cloud.  13 I have surely built You an exalted house,       And a place for You to dwell in forever.� God would dwell in his exalted house. 27 �But will God indeed dwell on the earth?  Sounds like  he couldn't believe such a thing, doesn't it?   And, he sounds astonished that  God would accually do it, does't it? Yes, God would dwell on the earth.  Amazing.

I found your reply to my point a bit incoherent. I say incoherent because you mention one part of the chapter, and then another part, none of which is in any order that makes an actual point, and then bring out another verse.

What we are discussing is your contention that Gd manifests Himself in earthly things. Manifestation in the context of your interpretation means that Gd literally places Himself into something finite, and is totally contained in it, in His entirety, such that the thing which contains Him can be called and considered Gd, or another part of Gd such that an equivalent relationship between the container and the contained are one. 

Your claim is that your belief, which is obviously based upon the NT, is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. This means you are trying to show that Gd has had a relationship with an earthly object that is the same as that with the Christian Jesus, found in the Hebrew Scriptures. 

1) Evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures is the point of topic

2) This would support your Christological view and your interpretation of the NT.

I noticed that you included a verse from your NT, which would be circular reasoning; given that your claim is that the Hebrew Scriptures supports your beliefs including your interpretation of the NT. In this case, the NT cannot support your claim for evidence to support your NT, since your claim must be shown through the Hebrew Scriptures.

Next, I will give the context for the chapter in question such that an obvious conclusion may be drawn.

I Kings Chapter eight deals with the temple dedication attributed to Solomon,who�s father David was unable to build the temple due to all of the blood on his hands from years of �holy war� against pagans (one may check any Rabbinical commentary on this to verify my statement and the HS).

Verses 1-5 deal with the gathering of the heads of the tribes and leaders of important ancestral families before Solomon and the bringing of the Ark from the city of David. Verses 6-11 deal with the actual placement of the Ark. At the point when the Ark is placed in the temple, a cloud moves in, �And it was as the Kohanim left the Sanctuary, that the cloud filled the Temple of HaShem� (verse 10), �The Kohanim could not stand and minister because of the cloud, for the glory of HaShem filled the Temple of HaShem�.

So it is your assertion that a presence of Gd in the temple is equivalent to the divinity of Jesus.

1)     Lets invoke Occam�s razor which is summed up by the statement, �plurality should not be posited without necessity�, or rather the simpler the explanation, the better.

2)     I would also like to invoke another sound and strong principle used in argument, rhetoric, the Principle of Charity. This simply plays out as interpreting a reading or an argument with the soundest and strongest rendering without taking an exaggerated view based upon agenda or presumption. (common sense interpretation)

3)      And another important fallacy I will bring up is �equivocation� which is, �committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time around.�   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

4)     The notion of equivocation brings us to an essential point not covered by you: What a divine presence is and is not is something you left ambiguous. I gave you a verse that unabmbiguously spells out how one should conceive the idea that Gd dwells on the earth. The verse I gave you, and the surrounding verses you have cursorily interpolated with Christological notions that yo further supported with your NT. I say �cursorily�, because you glossed over quite a few concepts, none of which have anything to do with the rendering of the �Mishkan� as another part of a Gd who is �plural� in nature according to 3^rd century Church doctors. Either a divine presence is equivalent to Jesus in Christology or it is not. If it is not, then this thread ends as the point does not support Christology. The attributes of the Jesus defined by Christology as one part of the trinity is such that Jesus is the Son, fully divine and fully Gd, but not equal with the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Son is fully Gd and fully man, co-equal and co eternal with the Father. The �divine presence of Gd� is the point, according to you, that explains the mechanics of how this (Christological Jesus) is �rationally� explained, and proven through an analogy of Gd placing His presence in other earthly objects. You are trying to show that a past �divine presence� in something shows that the Christological Jesus is also a part of the same relationship. Please focus on the issue of �what is divine presence�. You have asserted that �divine presence� is defined by the Christological Christ man/gd. If you want to make the same claim for some other phenomena that is an act of Gd, then the two must be alike in the context of your theological claim about Jesus or you are making an equivocation fallacy.

Continuing with the verses in question, 1 Kings 8:12-16, we find Solomon making a declaration. �Then Solomon said, �HaShem said that He would dwell in the thick cloud. I have surely built a house of habitation for You, the foundation for Your dwelling forever.�� He then goes on to make other remarks about Hashem and His promise to his father David. The point I would like to keep in mind is �dwelling in the thick cloud�.  This refers back to Exodus and Leviticus when Gd would dwell among the Israelites in the �Mishkan�. The idea of the �divine presence� is actually known as �Shechina�, which has a Jewish understanding that differs from the Christological �Christ�. This understanding follows common sense, and any attempt to superimpose Christology onto this understanding would be in the realm of absurd. The Jewish idea of �Shechina�, and a place, the �Mishkan�, for the �Shechina�, was to have a location of Gd�s presence in a place that was obvious to the Israelites in the desert. The Jewish idea of Shechina is simply an understanding of man�s perception of Gd being more in one place than another, though perception does not mean that Gd is actually more in one place than another. Perception is the key word. Christians may have this idea in church when they perceive Gd to be there in their place of worship when they are holding their arms in the air and speaking in tongues, or during Catholic Mass, when Gd is not bound by time or place and is perceived by other Christians in other places of worship. Perception, not the reality, nor a suggested reality. Solomon�s declaration is simply a referral to the idea of �divine presence�, or �Shechina�, that goes back to Exodus.

Applying Occam razor, what would be the most simple, or basic understanding, without having to posit �plurality� without necessity. Solomon�s declaration was a belief that Gd was really inside a place and contained in it, and he and the others believed Gd really �lived their�? Or was the declaration a reference to Exodus and Leviticus and the parallel with the new temple and that of the Torah, which was about the �divine presence�, a concept that has nothing to do with the Christological Jesus? The later interpretation also follows from �principle of charity�, given verses 27-29 of 1 Kings 8. �Would God truly dwell on earth? (a question that demands an answer, and a question right after his declaration in verses 12 and 13).

Behold, the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain You, and surely not the Temple that I have built! (here we have the answer to his own question, and the answer completely debunks any Christological interpretation of the declaration made in 8:12-13, which tells us that Solomon did not literally believe that an �infinite� Gd without any boundaries or physical limitations actually made home in the temple, but was in reference to a very different idea that is found in Exodus).

Solomon continues, �But may You turn to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplication, O HaShem my God, to hear the cry and the prayer that your servant prays before You today:..�

 So, if Solomon truly believed in such a literal interpretation as you have tried to interpolate, why would we find a �But�, right after an declaration that defines his actual belief and understanding, which is completely consistent with the idea of �divine presence�, which Jews prescribe to to this very day? There is more:Verse 29.

�that Your eyes be opened towards this temple night and day, to the place which You said, �My Name shall be there,�..� So if Solomon truly believed as you do, then why, after a declaration that Gd cannot truly be housed any place on earth, do we have him asking Gd to keep His eyes to the temple and to his supplication? So is this truly an example of the Christological Jesus, or is this simply about a Jewish concept derived from the Oral traditions and the Torah, and common sense? According to Occam�s razor, and the principle of charity, this is the most sane explanation, and to try and even imply that this idea of divine presence is the same as the divine manifestation of your idea about Jesus would be a fallacy in equivocation.    

Katherine wrote: You said: Presence does not imply "housing". Presence is no the same as becoming one with something earthly. That would be "pantheism". Let me explain further: John 1: 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. It is the words "dwelt among us" that we need to consider.  What do they mean?  The word "dwelt" can mean "tabernacled" (Greek esk�n�sen 'eskhnwsen) or "God struck a tent."  Yes, God "tabernacled" Himself in Jesus.  God Almighty was "present" in Jesus just as He was in the Temple.

Invoking John would be circular reasoning. Your claim that your NT supports your church doctrine is already established. We are looking at the claim that examples of your idea of divine manifestation in this world is supported by the Hebrew Scriptures.

You are also committing the fallacy of equivocation, given that �dwelt among us� is not the same thing as �divine presence� in terms of �Mishkan� and the �Shechina�. One has nothing to do with the other, and your attempt to superimpose pagan Greek thought onto the Hebrew Scriptures is simply wrong.

Katherine wrote:   Why was it necessary for God to take human nature?  What is the necessity of Christ having two natures? First, it was necessary because the Covenant demanded it.  The Covenant promise to the Patriarchs was 'I will be their God, they will be my People, and I will dwell in their midst' (tabernacle)� Genesis 17:7-8  'And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto you and to your seed after you. 8  And I will give to you, and to your seed offspring you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.'  Exodus 29:45 'And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.'; Leviticus 26:12 'And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be My people.' 2 Corinthians 6:16 'for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'; Revelation 21:3 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God'.

Once more, you are trying to equate ideas that are not equal. And once again you are trying to back it up with your NT. The idea of �Shechina� has nothing to do with the idea that Gd was birthed through a vaginal canal, used the bathroom, went through puberty, followed the devil around in the desert to reach enlightenment, and then allowed Himself to be killed so He could offer Himself as a perfect sacrifice so He would be able to forgive man of their sins. You are trying to force two completely different ideas of Gd into the same box. For you, Gd became a man to become a perfect sacrifice, which is also antithetical to the the Hebrew Scriptures (which would be a separate topic that I would be more than happy to discuss). So your first question was off topic for this thread.

Katherine wrote: Ultimately, for the covenant promise to be realized, God must dwell in the midst of His people.  In the Old Testament, the typological manifestation of this was the Tabernacle and later the Temple, the latter essentially being a concrete, permanent version of the former.  The Tabernacle/Temple was the place of divine indwelling, and also the place where God revealed Himself to Man, where sacrifice and thus reconciliation took place, and where the worship of God was effected.  When John 1:14 states that 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us', the Greek word used for 'dwell' is esk�n�sen 'eskhnwsen, which actually means 'tabernacled'.  So, in a further development from the dwelling-place of God in earlier times, God no longer dwells by His Name on the earth in something made by human hands, but dwells physically by virtue of the Incarnation.  Thus, the eternal Word, as flesh, entered the human scene and tabernacled among us. It is not pantheism.

You are repeating yourself, and you have not shown how your idea that Gd dwells in places of the earth is not pantheism, which states that Gd is in all things. And your wording was incorrect, it is not that Gd indwells in the tabernacle (Mishkan), it is that Gd dwells at the Mishkan, defined by the idea of �divine presence� which is not about �indwelling�, but about an idea of Gd being perceived to be in one place more than others. Gd being Jesus is not the same thing, as I have shown, as Shechina. The Christological Jesus is not the same thing as the idea of Shechina, although I am quite sure you will try your hardest to assert such an absurd idea. I predict this because as an evangelical, your faith seeks validation through the Hebrew Scriptures.  

Peace