Hebrews 12:29 - PUR

[WhiteWings]

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

I can't find any direct links in either the Bible or commentaries but perhaps someone can explain. :thumbsup:

Fire is Pur in Greek.
There are a lot of English words using pur.
PURe, PURify, PURge, etc

Is it a coincidence that all those words mean 'cleaning'?
The verse is in a way saying God is a cleaner (of sins)

So although pur simply translates into fire my question is if there is some 'hidden link' to 'cleaning'?
Afteral those 'pur words' aren't just random letter that happen to spell pur.
If yes, then the verse would get a (even stronger) UR meaning.

[Craig]

Yes, just coincidence.  :laughing7: There is two ways to be made clean in Scripture, technically three. Water, Blood and Fire, they are not the same and fire is always the last resort and involves destruction. If after seven days, you are clean, then you do not need fire; but after the seven days and you are still not clean, your garments are destroyed in fire and you must stay outside the camp of the Lord until the priests declare you are clean.

Revelation 7:15; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 21:8
And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Fire is not just for purification and cleaning, it is used to keep warm in the cold and a light in the darkness, most modern day Christians (and a good handful of Universalists) over look this and continue to believe that both believer and unbeliever go through a purifying fire. So when Jesus said we are salted with fire, does not mean we are being cleansed by it this fire, it means we are being ignited by it to be a light in the darkness. The fire of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentacost, were tongues of fire resting on their head, not consuming their body.

Since the second death is the Lake of Fire, and it has no power over those who trust in the Lord, that means it has no power to do anything. The fire cannot cleanse, hurt or destroy you because it has no power over you. So how is one in Christ cleansed? They are cleansed by the water and the blood. 

[WhiteWings]

Yes, just coincidence.  :laughing7:

Pitty pitty....
Could have the words where somehow derived from the Greek.


Anyway it was after reading this article that I got the idea.
http://www.godfire.net/VoiceofSon66.html

[Taffy]

Craig ... "cleansed by water and blood"

I've always been curious about several verses and have been attempting  to connect them into a meaningful and, of course, a Scriptural truth.  Can you help? 

1John 5:7-8

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

and

Ephesians 5:26

that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word


Colossians 1: 20

And by Him ro reconcile all things to Himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.


Thanks.
Anna

For mine,,, Anna.
The Church was BORN through the spilling of HIS BLOOD and WATER on the Cross..cleansing US OF SIN..., thus ,enabling HIS CHURCH to be BORN of Spirit..The SPIRIT OF TRUTH...the THREE bearing witness of HIM """"in""""the EARTH, meaning within us.

Jhn 19:34  But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth

Hbr 9:1-28 shows us the first Covenant and the PATTERNS which FOLLOW

[Craig]

The regulations of the Law concerning ceremoniously clean, actually clean, ceremoniously unclean, and actually unclean, are found particularly in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

There is two ways of cleansing, technically three. Water, Fire and Blood. The reason I say technically is that two ways of cleansing apply to the same thing, while the third is completely different. In order not to be complicated, I will simplify and generalize.

If a thing is unclean, water is used to cleanse it. If that thing is clean after being washed by water, then that thing is clean. If that thing remains unclean even after being washed by water, then it is cleansed again but this time the detergent changes from water to fire.
Fire is the last resort for the things which have not been cleansed by water because it cleanses not by washing but destruction.

Here is the propositions:
1) Not every thing is cleansed by water, some things are cleansed by fire.
2) Not every thing is cleansed by fire, some things are cleansed by water.

In regards to the third, blood, it is used differently. Blood cleanses through propitiation, not direct washing, it is substitutionary atonement. It cleanses both the past and future generations of guilt and sin depending on the priest who presents it by faith.

Here is the propositions:
1) Every thing is cleansed by blood.

Remember this is a simplified generalization of the three cleansing agents. The thing I need everyone to understand is that fire is reserved only for the thing that persists to remain unclean and not every thing persists to remain unclean.

Applying this to the New Testament, people begin to confuse cause and effect and just make hasty generalizations and confuse how each things is applied in a spiritual sense. Jesus is the High Priest. Jesus is the Water. Jesus is the Blood. Jesus baptizes with Spirit. Jesus baptizes with Fire. etc.

[Taffy]

The regulations of the Law concerning ceremoniously clean, actually clean, ceremoniously unclean, and actually unclean, are found particularly in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

There is two ways of cleansing, technically three. Water, Fire and Blood. The reason I say technically is that two ways of cleansing apply to the same thing, while the third is completely different. In order not to be complicated, I will simplify and generalize.

If a thing is unclean, water is used to cleanse it. If that thing is clean after being washed by water, then that thing is clean. If that thing remains unclean even after being washed by water, then it is cleansed again but this time the detergent changes from water to fire.
Fire is the last resort for the things which have not been cleansed by water because it cleanses not by washing but destruction.

Here is the propositions:
1) Not every thing is cleansed by water, some things are cleansed by fire.
2) Not every thing is cleansed by fire, some things are cleansed by water.

In regards to the third, blood, it is used differently. Blood cleanses through propitiation, not direct washing, it is substitutionary atonement. It cleanses both the past and future generations of guilt and sin depending on the priest who presents it by faith.

Here is the propositions:
1) Every thing is cleansed by blood.

Remember this is a simplified generalization of the three cleansing agents. The thing I need everyone to understand is that fire is reserved only for the thing that persists to remain unclean. Not everything persists to remain unclean.

:icon_flower:

But EVERY THING IS CLEANSED :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:..cool egh!

[WhiteWings]

Craig I like your ability to explain things in simple terms  :thumbsup:

Somewhere I read that fire and brimstone was used to (symbolically) purify temples.

Remember this is a simplified generalization of the three cleansing agents. The thing I need everyone to understand is that fire is reserved only for the thing that persists to remain unclean. Not everything persists to remain unclean.

Does that also apply to the afterlife? So for some hell is being cleaned by water and for other fire is used?

[WhiteWings]

But EVERY THING IS CLEANSED :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:..cool egh!

Don't be to shure of that Taffy. I don't know about you but I start to sweat near a fire. So I stay dirty.
Maybe we stop sweating if we are extra crispy  :laughing7:

[Taffy]

But EVERY THING IS CLEANSED :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:..cool egh!

Don't be to shure of that Taffy. I don't know about you but I start to sweat near a fire. So I stay dirty.
Maybe we stop sweating if we are extra crispy  :laughing7:

he ha WW....  :icon_flower:    nothing like GOOD sauna to clean out the impurites matey, :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

[Craig]

Craig I like your ability to explain things in simple terms  :thumbsup:

Somewhere I read that fire and brimstone was used to (symbolically) purify temples.

Scripture, both New and Old Testament, actually say that everything is purified by blood.

Hebrews 9:21-22a
And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood and according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood...

I do not find anywhere in Scripture that the Temple was purified by fire except when the Israel rejected God, that is when the Temple was rejected by God, and it was destroyed by fire.

Brimstone was used because it symbolically represents blood and water.  In it's solid state it is gold, in it's liquid state it is blood red, and in it's gaseous state it is ocean blue. In order for brimstone to appear as blood and water, the two purifying agents cleansed, it is needed to be revealed by fire. (Exodus 3:2; Ezekiel 1:13; 1 Corinthians 3:13, 2 Thessalonian 1:7)

[WhiteWings]

It wasn't a Bible quote Craig. Just something I've read in some Christian article/book.
I googled a bit and found a article you might like. Or not  :winkgrin:

The "lake of fire and brimstone" into which Death and Hades is placed, in the Greek would be grammatically correct to translate as the "lake of fire and divinity", or even "the lake of divine fire".

.It is interesting to examine the Greek word for "divine", it is from the Greek "theion", which could also mean "divine being", but also means "sulfur', or in Old English "brimstone"

Clearly, this "burning stone" was a divine substance, and as such, it was simply called "divinity. It was burned within a new temple to "purify" it before consecration, presumably when this burning stone released it's divinity, it causes all evil things to flee from the temple, and thus was the temple readied for worship.Yet the word 'theion' is translated as "brimstone" or "sulfur" in Luke 17:29, Rev. 9:17, 14:10, 20:10, 21:8, which is where 'fire and brimstone' comes out of heaven, but it is equally interchange with the words "divine fire".

http://www.forumishqiptar.com/archive/index.php/t-34272.html

[WhiteWings]

Once the fire of Christ came, and that age ended (at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 a.d.) the fire in the temple ceased to bum, as did the flames in the Valley of Hinnom.
http://www.angelfire.com/nm/ThePathfinder/66Brimstone.html

Is there a deeper meaning in the above?
Hinnom is closely related to hell. And it stopped burning.

[Craig]

Okay you are going to need to slow down. There are fires that have nothing to do with purification, but were symbols of God's wrath, or judgment. The Jews also had extra-Levitical practices, which are not found in the Law of God given to Israel. So, not everything the Jews did and believed were commandments given to them by God to do and believe. That is why Jesus called them children of the devil and serpents.

There is the alter of incense, in which they burned brimstone (it was considered fragrant). This was not for purification, but was symbolic of the intercession, prayers on behalf of those who were atoned or going through atonement. The incense was to burn perpetually to represent the perpetual intercession between God and men. So although identified in the purification process, it is not the purification process.

Once the fire of Christ came, and that age ended (at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 a.d.) the fire in the temple ceased to burn, as did the flames in the Valley of Hinnom.

Well, that is because Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple were destroyed. So everything from the temple to the Valley of Hinnom were no more. This is because the destruction of Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple is called the Judgment of Gehenna. This judgment was executed, just like Jesus said to the Pharisee in Matthew 23 to this generation. 

Why did the fire go out of the Temple? God had not been in the Temple since 33 AD, when the presence of God left and the curtain was torn from top to bottom. The perpetual flame died that day and the fire in the Temple of foreign. The destruction of the Temple began in 33 AD and without God to protect it, the Temple was destroyed in 70AD just as Jesus had warned would happen to that generation.

Why did the fire go out in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna)? Because the fire lit by King Josiah originally to remind Israel of the impending judgment which was coming because of their disobedience and unfaithfulness to God.  With the judgment of Gehenna, as prophesied by Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah began in 0 AD at the birth of Christ and ended in 70 AD at the destruction of Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple, there was no reason or need for a reminder of the impending judgment since it had ended.

P.S. The judgment actually started with birth of Jesus and John the Baptist and so the Tribulation of Israel actually occurred though a 70 year period, Israel, Jerusalem were desolate for 70 years as Scripture said it would be. The first 35 years the birth to the death/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the last 35 years to the destruction of Israel in full by Rome.  Break the "Seven Years of Tribulation" and mirror it to the birth of Jesus, death/resurrection of Jesus and the destruction of Israel/Jerusalem/Temple. What you will see is not a coincidence.

[laren]

Okay you are going to need to slow down. There are fires that have nothing to do with purification, but were symbols of God's wrath, or judgment. The Jews also had extra-Levitical practices, which are not found in the Law of God given to Israel. So, not everything the Jews did and believed were commandments given to them by God to do and believe. That is why Jesus called them children of the devil and serpents.

There is the alter of incense, in which they burned brimstone (it was considered fragrant). This was not for purification, but was symbolic of the intercession, prayers on behalf of those who were atoned or going through atonement. The incense was to burn perpetually to represent the perpetual intercession between God and men. So although identified in the purification process, it is not the purification process.

Once the fire of Christ came, and that age ended (at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 a.d.) the fire in the temple ceased to burn, as did the flames in the Valley of Hinnom.

Well, that is because Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple were destroyed. So everything from the temple to the Valley of Hinnom were no more. This is because the destruction of Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple is called the Judgment of Gehenna. This judgment was executed, just like Jesus said to the Pharisee in Matthew 23 to this generation. 

Why did the fire go out of the Temple? God had not been in the Temple since 33 AD, when the presence of God left and the curtain was torn from top to bottom. The perpetual flame died that day and the fire in the Temple of foreign. The destruction of the Temple began in 33 AD and without God to protect it, the Temple was destroyed in 70AD just as Jesus had warned would happen to that generation.

Why did the fire go out in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna)? Because the fire lit by King Josiah originally to remind Israel of the impending judgment which was coming because of their disobedience and unfaithfulness to God.  With the judgment of Gehenna, as prophesied by Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah began in 0 AD at the birth of Christ and ended in 70 AD at the destruction of Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple, there was no reason or need for a reminder of the impending judgment since it had ended.

P.S. The judgment actually started with birth of Jesus and John the Baptist and so the Tribulation of Israel actually occurred though a 70 year period, Israel, Jerusalem were desolate for 70 years as Scripture said it would be. The first 35 years the birth to the death/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the last 35 years to the destruction of Israel in full by Rome.  Break the "Seven Years of Tribulation" and mirror it to the birth of Jesus, death/resurrection of Jesus and the destruction of Israel/Jerusalem/Temple. What you will see is not a coincidence.

Hi Craig,

so are you partial preterist in thinking/belief?? 

[Redlettervoice]

The book of Esther talks about the "days" of PUR.

Toward the last of the book.  I study a lot from KJV

and there is reference in the center column that PUR

means LOT. I know that LOT means w/o man's choice

or will, and has to do with our INHERITANCE. Perhaps

this bit of info will fill in for some of your studying.

Blessings.

[Craig]

so are you partial preterist in thinking/belief?? 

I believe what was and is and is to come.  :cloud9:

[laren]

so are you partial preterist in thinking/belief?? 

I believe what was and is and is to come.  :cloud9:

So i'm trying to put together your thoughts on gehenna and "now".  do you see gehenna as "is and is to come" too?  if i'm sidetracking the thread, u can pm me too.  thanks

[Craig]

Yes and No.

Gehenna was the judgment that cut Israel off because of their unbelief and the Gentiles grafted in. Paul warns that if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare the wild ones grafted in, should they do as Israel did.

Romans 11:17-21
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

[WhiteWings]

Don't worry about sidetracking the thread Laren.
I got my answer (unless other have something to add)

For me everything is new so every discussion is a learning point.

:banana: :banana: :banana: :friendstu: :banana: :banana: :banana:

[Nathan]

Romans 11:17-21
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either

I'm seeing this a little differently.  I don't know that I could attach this to the destruction of Israel due to the fact that this was written before the destruction took place.  For me, it also fits in with another difference I see with the take of the 70 weeks of Daniel implied also in an earlier post.  The idea the the 70th week is dealing with a 70 year period of time sort of goes against the previous 69 weeks in that they are weaks of years . . not weeks of decades.

The 70 weeks of Daniel . . .to me . . .were actually 490 years where there was a great deal of preparation for the Jews to birth Christ as a nation, and accept Christ as their redeemer.  When Jesus came . . .originally, his message was to Jews only.  The coming of Jesus to the nation of Israel was an exclamation point of the 70 weeks.  Jesus came in the last week of those set aside for Israel.  Not in the middle as you propose.  I see his ministry . . . which lasted 3 and 1/2 years . . .to be the back half of the last week of the 70 set aside.  The turning point came when the first martyred soul took place. 

Everything is in patterns.  Everything that is said, spoken, even body language.  The opening verses in Matthew 24 Jesus body actions were specifically recorded for a purpose.  It states there that Jesus "left the temple".  He disconnected himself from the religious.  The disciples . . .still feeling their flesh sting from the rebuke Jesus just belted the Pharisees with in the previous chapter, they tried to soften things up by getting Jesus to admire the buildings, the work, the dedication required for such impressive structures to be errected.  Jesus would have none of it . . .not one stone would be left on top of the other . . .  Jesus left the temple behind.

Just as that was a huge key, so is the key of whether one is standing, or when one is sitting.  Note when this next verse was recorded. . .

Mark 16:19
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

When did this happen?  At the resurrection.  Jesus passed back from natural into the spirit realm where he took his position of rest.  Right?  Okay .  . somewhere between there and the stoning of Stephen, something changes . . .because  . .well, you read it.

Acts 7
55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,  56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.  57Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

Jesus stood up.  He was seated, but here, he stood up . . .why?  I believe it's because it was a testament that this stoning of Stephen was the end of the prophetic frame of time set aside for the Jews.  After this event, the emphasis of the Gospel changed direction and went to the Gentiles through the ministry of Paul. "This" is what I think Romans was referring to . . .about the cutting off and grafting in . .. not about the destruction of A.D. 70.

[Craig]

Romans 11, was not talking about 70 A.D., it was part of it. Jesus said the house of Israel was left desolate even in Matthew 23, even before His death and resurrection. Israel was rejected far before the stoning of Stephen.

[Nathan]

Oh, I agree, there were MANY references to what was coming . . .but I'm just saying, I don't see the connection of the 70 weeks being a time period of 70 years "and" Paul's message was not really about the coming devastation . . .it was about not taking the gift of grafting for granted . . .again . .to me that's what I'm seeing . .I'm sure others see different things.

[Craig]

Oh, I agree, there were MANY references to what was coming . . .but I'm just saying, I don't see the connection of the 70 weeks being a time period of 70 years "and" Paul's message was not really about the coming devastation . . .it was about not taking the gift of grafting for granted . . .again . .to me that's what I'm seeing . .I'm sure others see different things.

The coming devastation is what Jesus talked about, but Paul was talking about that Israel is desolate, which Jesus also talked about. I see your division is artificial. There is much more going on in the what I was relating, then the devastation of Israel.

[Nathan]

I see your division is artificial. There is much more going on in the what I was relating, then the devastation of Israel

Artificial . . .not sure I follow . .you're saying the discussion is under fake pretense?

[Craig]

I am saying that the division does not mean exclusion. If I blind someone in the eye, doesn't mean they are blind, it means they are blind in one eye and can see perfectly in the other. I cannot formulate the problem articulately, but on a map, in an acre of land there is dirt trails, forests, lakes, rivers, and highways. Just because a person canoes across the acre on the river, another takes a dirt trail, another takes a hike through the forest and another takes the highway, does not mean they were not going through the same acre.