kfc posts: 45

LULA POSTS:

OK, KFC, it's your blog, it's your message...Locusts is to be believed literally, but Jesus' words in St. John 6 aren't.

I'm neither deceived nor following paganism.

KFC POSTS:

Here's my rejoinder..using v. 63-64 "If then you shall see the SOn of man ascend up where he was befoe? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."  

When Christ promised that He would give His very flesh to eat, the Jews protested becasue they imagined a natural and cannabalistic eating of Christ's Body. Christ refuted this notion of the manner in which His flesh was to be received by saying that He would ascend into Heaven, not leaving His Body in its human form on earth. But He did not say that they were not to eat His actual Body and Blood. He would thus contradict Himself becasue earlier He said, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." v. 56. 

He meant, therefore, you will not be asked to eat my flesh in the horrible and natural way you think, for my body as you see it with your eyes will be gone from this earth and in Heaven. Yet, I shall leave my flesh and blood in another  and supernatural way which your natural and carnal minds cannot understand. The carnal or fleshly judgment profits nothing. I ask you therefore to have faith in Me and trust in Me. It is the spirit of faith which will enable you to believe not your natural judgment. 

Then as you know, the Gospel goes on to say that many would not believe, and walked no more with Him. Christ's Body is ascended into Heaven, but it's substance independently of all the laws of space which effects substance through accidental qualtities, This Body is present in every consecrated Host.  

You should stop bearing false witness against the Church in which Christ abides 24/7 in fulfillment of Malachais' prophecy 1:11 until the end of the world.  

talk about irony. 

anyone who lived in socal then surely remembers fleets of helicopters flying over us at night spraying malathion on everything and everyone.  a couple smartass morning deejays held a marathon fundraiser for "jerry's flies" (playing on both the annual jerry lewis thing and the fact jerry brown was governor at the time). 

that oughta be prettttty innaresting considering locusts are pretty benign except when they horde...and the only thing powering the horde is group hunger.  so if they aren't consuming plants nor actually eating people, the horde's gonna quickly run outta fuel and phhhhht.

nothing new need be created or be imbued with special powers when there are plenty of scary bacteria & virii kickin around just waiting for an opportunity to exploit some arcane flaw in our immune systems.  the whole idea of exotic scorpion locusts insults the intelligence and power yall ascribe to your gods (plural since it seems there's some question as to grammatical as well as physical number depending on your preferred flavor of christianity). 

without meaning to add even more confusing elements, i can't help but call attention to the recent discovery of several dozen fossilized specimens of what may be the most intimidating and largest snake to ever crawl the planet--a superboa longer than a city bus.  too bad they didn't hang around long enough to infect the garden of eden.

You are closer now.

There is two words "elohim". One is the plural of "eloah". That "elohim" is used with plural verb forms.

The other is the name "Elohim" (spelt the same in Hebrew, but with an upper-case "E" in transliteration). It derives from the plural of "eloah" but is used with singular verb forms.

Neither version of "elohim" is the correct number of a Trinity. Hebrew has three numbers: singular, dual, and plural.

Singular is used to describe zero, one, or more than twelve.

Dual is used to describe a pair or other inherent plural.

Plural is used to describe three to eleven in a non-inherent plural.

The following terms each use a different number in (ancient) Hebrew but only two different numbers in (modern) English:

1. one leg

2. four legs of the same dog

3. three legs

1. one day

2. two days

3. three days

A trinity is like a pair, not like a generic collection of things without relation other than being of the same type. But "elohim", even if you insist on reading it as a plural of "eloah" (despite the fact that the verb it commands is a singular), is not a dual number and does NOT describe a pair, a trinity, four of the same set, or anything like that.

(The dual number also applies to teeth in a mouth

Not quite.

"In the beginning gods (he) created the heavens and the earth."

(I inserted the "he" to show what verb form is used.)

Let me use the name of my friend "Arnolds" again. He is one person but has a name that sounds like the plural of "Arnold".

If you see this sentence:

"Arnolds is a big man, he can look over everyone's shoulder."

What would you derive from it?

1. Arnolds is several people.

2. Arnolds is one person with a funny name.

3. Arnolds is a trinity (but not a pair or group of four).

How do you know what he meant when you don't use the rest of scripture to interpret what he meant?

You just don't stop do you Lula?  Even after I asked you not to turn this into a CC discussion you have diliberately ignored my request.  If we hadn't already been around and around this already I would have been pleased to discuss this with you.  But we have.  And I've learned it's not worth my time to go over such things with you because you completely do not hear a thing I say. 

Again, that's what you've been told by the CC.  Christ DOES NOT abide in any Temple or Church made by hands.  That's what the scriptures tell us.  He indwells believers not church buildings. 

I'll be the first to say the trinity is not easy to understand completly.  Jesus was considered God.  YHWH in the OT was considered God.  The Holy Spirit is considered God.  We are told in the prophet Isaiah's words:

"For unto us a child is born.  Unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God (Elohim).  The everlasting father, the Prince of Peace."  9:6

We see this printed in Christmas cards but in all reality this is the Messiah the Jews were waiting for.  This is a description of the Messiah (Jesus) but not at his birth, but at his final appearance when he comes to rule the earth for good. 

So we see, from Isaiah,  that God will be born a child.  How can that be?  We go over to  the NT John and we get another picture o this:

"In the beginning (before creation) was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD.  The same was in the beginning with God.  ALL things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made........and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"........ John 1.

Basically what we are seeing is God made himself flesh "ginomai."  He came from one type of existence to another.  He changed from God to God in the Flesh.   We see that this baby Messiah was the creator of the earth.  How can that be? 

We may not exactly understand all the intrinsic ways of God but he tells us what we need to know and later all the minute details will fall into place. 

It is not my goal to "understand" the trinity. You can believe what you want and I don't have to understand it.

I am worried about the Hebrew Bible, a text that is of very high value to me. I cannot understand why someone would say that they base their religion on that same text and then make up new meanings of words and create a new understanfding of grammar.

Whatever "elohim" sounds like, it is a word in singular when used with a singular verb. That's a simple fact of Hebrew grammar.

There are other Hebrew words and names that sound like plural words, but it rarely implies a trinity or the idea that there is more than one of the person.

"Mayim" means "waters" and is also a female name. But the excellent actress Mayim Bialik has never been accused of being a trinity or hiding several people within herself.

"Achot" is Hebrew for "sister" and sounds like a plural (female suffix -ot). (The actual plural "sisters" is "achiot".)

King "Jehoiakim" had a name ending on "-im" but few people would argue that he consisted of more than one person.

I will accept validity of the claim that the name "Elohim" used with singular verbs implies a trinity or more than one god if you will accept that the name "Mayim" used with singular verb implies a trinity or more than one person for the same grammatical reason.

But until then Mayim is one girl and Elohim is one god.

Lula posts:

Good, good, good...

And this is how Catholics can equate the trinitarian God of Christianity wiht the affirmation of God's oneness found in the She-ma.

I think the main obstacle to Jewish appreciation of the three in one principle of God Who is in His nature One in substance, yet, God is three in Persons is partly due to the realization that belief in the Trinity carries with it belief in Jesus, the Second Person of the Triune God, as the Messias.

Just to be clear, when I say Elohim is plural, I don't mean three Gods...I believe and worship but One Eternal God. The Divine sayso of Jesus Christ, the infallible Catholic Church that He established, and the New Testament warrants belief in the Blessed Trinity, the Triunity in unity in God.

I'd change that...But until then Mayim is one girl and Elohim is one God. Get my drift?

I can see the oneness, but whence do you take the "trinity" thing?

(And what is the dash for in "she-ma"? The vowel between /sh/ and /m/ is null.)

I really don't care what or whom the trinity contains. I am just wondering where you see the "three".

I know what you mean by the trinity. I am solely commenting on how you read the Hebrew Bible. You see plurals where the grammar doesn't warrant seeing them and you mistranslate words (like "unity" instead of "one").

The Shema is directed at a people surrounded by polytheists and reminded them that Elohim is one god, not many gods. It has nothing to do with a trinity.

You are removing the Torah from the time it was written and look at it as if were written today. When the Torah was revealed people had to choose between belief in many gods (like the majority did) or one god. There were others gods the Torah referred to. They didn't exist, but they had names and people believed in them. Gramatically, a god is the same as a girl: a person who can be a subject in a sentence.

Sounds like you're getting caught up with semantics again Leauki. 

You're saying Elohim can be plural right?  But it can also be singular right? 

So what's the problem?  It still says..."let us" make man in "our" image.   Isn't that plural? 

We also see Elohim as plural in other parts of scripture.  Say Psalm 81:1,6 for instance.   In John 10:34 when Jesus was accused of blasphemy he appealed to this Psalm making the case crystal clear that all believers who "are sons of the Most High" to be "gods."   He said to the Jews, "Is it not written in your law I have said you are gods?"  Jesus was demonstrating that the title could be attached to certain men "to whom the word of God came" and therefore could not be any objections lodged against his claim to be divine. 

I'm reading a book right now by a very Jewish Scholar, Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889). He spent his lifetime studying scriptures especially the OT scriptures and wrote many books on Jewish Doctrine and History.   He was one of the leading authorities of his time regarding the docines and practices of Judaism in the centuries preceding and during the early Christain era. 

He brought up that the scriptures say "spirit of Elohim" in 1 Samuel 10:10.  How does that figure in your reading of the languages?   We see in Gen 1:1 that God created the heavens and the earth and his spirit moved over the waters. 

From a Christian POV this spirit of Elohim is just another way of saying Holy Spirit which is also God.

I'd like to think that I simply read the plain text without applying too much fantasy to it.

Like Mayim and mayim Elohim and elohim can be both a name in singular and a word in plural.

Yes. But He is talking to someone and including them in the speech. It doesn't in any way imply that He Himself is more than one. He is probably talking to angels, or possible, since when that was written polytheism was still around, talking to lesser gods.

no, polytheism is only the belief in other gods.  There are no other gods and the whole of the OT Hebrew scriptures is very clear on that.  There is only one God and his name is Elohim.  You bailed big time on that one Leauki. 

So God (Elohim) isn't in cahoots in creation with other gods because there weren't any. 

What about Isaiah 9:6 when the coming Messiah is referred to as the "mighty God (Elohim) and Everlasting Father?  How can that be if there was no trinity involved? 

In many OT passages Elohim is plurally used.  Often one must go back to the original Hebrew translation to see that certain variants of Elohim are plural, although the more current writing would indicate that they are singular.  For instance:

"Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth...Ecclesiates 12:1.  In the original Hebrew this is literally thy Creators.

"For thy Maker is thine husband"....Isaiah 54:5.  Here, Maker shoud be translated Makers. 

There are triune conversations in Isaiah

"Also I heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send  and who will go for us?  Then said I, Here am I, send me" Isaiah 6:8

In this passage there is a reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit:

In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence (son)  saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.  But thy rebelled and vexed his holy Spirit; therefore he was turned to be their enemy, Isa 63:9,10 

Actually, the Israelite religion evolved from polytheism and was henotheistic before the Babylonian exile. The god of Israel (Elohim) was understood to be the creator god and only god worthy of worship, the god of gods. The Torah does not say that the other gods don't exist and mentions several other gods, some by name.

I guess the strict monotheism came to Judaism from Zoroastrianism after the Babylonian exile.

Judaism as such doesn't make any statements about the existence of other gods, it merely forbids Jews from worshipping such other gods. Most tribes had their own main god each. And Moses didn't even know that "El" and G-d were the same god until he was told. "El" is the generic word for "god" or "powerful one" in Semitic languages and it was also the word/name for the creator god. He had a wife named "Asherath" and the other gods were their children.

Let me guess, the reference to the son is the word "son" you added in brackets?

Lula posts:

I've already answered that in post #50.

The belief the three Divine Persons share the one Divine Nature and are but One God is hinted at in the Old Testament and more fully revealed in the New. We've discussed the use of the word "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26, and 11:17, and KFC has mentioned several others.

It's a revealed mystery to be accepted as true merely becasue God teaches it. The dogma was revealed by Jesus Christ. St.Matt. 11:27, mentioned in St.Luke's account of the Incarnation, 1:32-33, in St.Matthew's description of the Baptism of Christ, in our Lord's discourse at the Last Supper, and in His Divine commission to the Apostles. It's set forth in the Baptismal formula and handed down by Sacred Tradition as a doctrine which distinguishes Christianity from all other religions.

I've always understood that if you say the universal Jewish prayer in Hebrew, as recorded in Deut. 6:4, then you express belief in the plurality of Persons in God. A Jewish convert to Catholicism explained it this way. The literal translation is Hear Isreal Jehovah Gods One. Adonai is His name; Elohenu is His plural existence; the singular of Elohenu is Eloah or El. Does that make sense to you?

Lula posts:

I beg to differ.

Christ is God and let's go to Exodus 25: 8-10, 27 and read that Almighty God gave Moses exact instructions for the making of the Tabernacle, the sanctuary. "And they shall make me a sanctuary and I will dwell in the midst of them. The people furnished the materials for it v. 9, "According to all the likeness of the tabernacle which I will show thee, and of all the vessels for the services thereof, and thus you shall make it."

So Moses built the Tabernacle and it was divided into 2 parts, the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. In the Holy of Holies MOses placed the Ark of the COvenant where he put the tables of the Law on which the Ten COmmandments were written as well as a vase filled with Manna, and the rod of Aaron. The lid was called the Propitiatory at the ends stood two cheribum of gold with their wings spread over shadowing it.

In the Holy were 3 objects...the altar of incense for the daily sacrifice, the 7-branched candlestick on which 7 lamps burned perpetually, and the table of unleavened breads which had to be renewed every Sabbath. On a table was a golden vial filled with wine. In the outer court was the brazen altar where the holocausts were burned. The people remained on the outer court and only the Priests were allowed to enter the Holy. Moses poured oil on the Tabernacle and then the pillar of cloud in which God was present descended upon the Propitiatory between the 2 Cheribum was God's dwelling in the midst of His people.

The existence of but one God means that there can be but one true religion of God. There can be but one true Temple-Chruch of God at any one time. It must be divinely instituted, authoritative, priestly Church. Deut. 17:8-12, St.Matt. 18:15-18.

The religious authority of this God instituted Temple -Chruch in matters of faith and morals must center in its hierarchy Deut. 17:8-12, St.Matt. 18:16-20 and Romans 13:2.

The highest communal form of worship in this God made religion centers in altar sacrifices, offered by priests in honor of God, as commanded by God, for the spiritual well-being of the children of God. Levit. chapters 1-7, Numbers 17, St.Luke 22:19-20 and Hebrews 8:1-4.

That one true Chruch was the priestly Temple-Chruch of the children of Isreal which operated with divine sanction from the days of Moses and Aaron until the First Pentecost Day in 33AD.

Leauki may want to perk up here....

The prayerful hope of the children of Isreal centered in the coming of the predicted Messias Is. 7:14, 9:6, Gen. 49:24-26. He came in the time Dan. 9:24-26, place Bethlehem Michaes 5:2, family and manner foretold and His name is Jesus 2King 7:12; Zach. 9:9; St.Matt. 21:9-11. Jesus, the Messias came to fulfill the Law and prophjecies of the Mosaic dispensation. StMatt. 5:17.  This fulfillment was evidenced in the life and works of Jesus, and in the principles He proclaimed, which existed potentially and prophetically in the Judaism which was of God. Also, in His institution of a Chruch of all nations in place of the Temple-Chruch of an exclusive people , the children of Isreal. St.Matt. 28:16-20.

This fulfillment was evidenced in the institution by Jesus of a more perfect, more authoritative priesthood than was called for in the Mosaic Law. It is a priesthood without genealogy, in place of the priesthood of Aaron, which was inherited, family priesthood. Ps. 109:4; Hebrews 5:1-6;7.

This fulfillment was evidenced in the institution by Jesus of a more perfect Sacrifice; an "unbloody oblation", later called the Holy Mass,in place of the bloody Mosaic sacrifices, Mal. 1:11; St.Luke 22:19-20.

This sacrifice was to be offered on altars all over the world, "from the rising of the sun, unto the going down thereof", instead of a single altar in a central place, as called for in the Old Testament. Deut. 12, Esdras 7:17, Mal. 1:11.

The Mosaic Church of the children of Isreal set forth in the Torah ended its divine mission in the first century of the Christian era, when it ceased to have a priesthood, which was followed by the destruction of the Temple with the single altar. With the ending of the existence of the Aaronic priesthood, there came an end to the sacrifices called for in Leviticus. Thus the Judaism in the OT became a thing of the historic past.

St.Paul writes,  "The Tabernacle is a parable of the time present". It foreshadowed the Chruch of the New Testament and its houses of God. That Church of Christ was to be and is an organic, visible, authoritative, priestly self-perpetuating spiritual society, which Christ promised to remain with until the end of the world.

As there was only one Tabernacle and one divine worship instituted by God Himself, so there is only one Church and one true worship of Christ in the world instituted by Himself. As there was a real but mysterious and hidden presence of God in the Tabernacle in the pillar of cloud over the Ark, so there is the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Holy Altar.  He is both the cloud and the living bread (Manna) that has come down from Heaven to give life to the world.

As the Tabernacle was divided, so Catholic churches have 2 parts. One for the priests, called the sanctuary where the altar is, with the perpetual lamp burning, and the other for the faithful is called the body of the Church. The seven lights are the 7 sacraments which are dispensed in the Chruch  and the laver is the Baptismal font and the confessional is where we are cleansed from our sins. So, you can see that the Tabernacle was a type which finds its perfect fulfillment in every Catholic Chruch.  

No, it's quite the opposite. Belief in a god-related plurality was exactly what they prayer was supposed to get out of the Israelites systems.

Perhaps he didn't understand the concept of one god. Many Germanic tribes in Europe found to Roman Catholicism because its Trinity, saints, and icons presented a religion very compatible with polytheistic tendencies.

No. I gave you the literal translation before. I don't see much sense in you coming up with ever new "literal translations" after I already told you what the sentence means.

Adonai is not a name. It's the plural first person singular possesive of "adon" = "lord". The plural is used as a majestic plural. (Either way the singular and plural "adoni" and "adonai" are spelt the same in Hebrew.)

The plural of "el" is "elim", the plural of "eloah" is "elohim". "Eloheinu" means "our god", it is not the plural of "eloah" or "el".

Plurals in Hebrew are formed in one of three ways:

1. Add suffix "-im" to construct form, sometimes changing vowels: bayit (house) -> beit (construct form) -> batim (houses)

2. Change last vowel in construct form: chavera (female friend) -> chaverat (construct form) -> chaverot (female friends)

3. Irregular (rare): ish (man) -> anashim (men)

Possesive forms are formed by adding the right suffix to the construct form:

1. bayit (house) -> beit (construct form) -> beiteinu (our house)

2. eloah (god) -> eloh (construct form) -> eloheinu (our god)

Duals are formed by adding the suffix "-aim" to the construct form:

1. yom (day) -> yam (construct form) -> yamaim (pair of days)

OK, just to be crystal clear. Catholics are monotheists, not polytheists. We believe, love and worship the One Eternal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 

I know the Shema in Hebrew doesn't express belief in 3 separate Gods...and guess what...neither did those who "heard" it.  There is a vast difference between belief in the plurality of Persons in God which it implies and 3 separate Gods.

The Blessed Trinity is a mystery and I understand that it's an obstacle to Jewish appreciation. Again, this is due partly to the realization that belief in the Trinity carries with it belief in Jesus, the Second Person of the Triune God, as the Messias.

It is quite irrelevant whether Catholics are polytheists or not. The Shema tells everyone that G-d is one, regardless of which particular belief you hold that requires the Shema to say something else.

Nobody said that the Shema expresses belief in three separate gods. I guess I'll wait until you are done with this phase and come back to the discussion?

I don't find it very mysterious. And I don't care whether G-d sent you a Messiah and a holy ghost in order to convince European polytheists that a religion based on Judaism is also convincing.

I am merely and solely telling you that the Hebrew Bible does NOT support your belief in a Trinity. That's all.

LEAUKI POSTS: #20

lula posts

leauki posts:

And what is freely asserted can be freely denied. The Old Testament does indeed support the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity but you evidently choose to keep yourself blinded to that fact. "You don't care" to investigate further the fact that Almighty God revealed Himself in Hebrew Scripture.  

It's vain to think the Messias has not yet come. Not only did the Messias come centuries ago in the Person of Jesus Christ, but there exists not a distinctive tribe of Judah, and therefore a house of David within it, such as existed in the days of the Blessed Virgin Mary in which a Messias or anybody else could be born.

As for the Shema, the Blessed Trinity, and having faith in God alone, my honest thoughts and suggestions are posted # 23.

I would disagree.  I believe Adonai is just one of many names for God.  The name Adonai means "Master, Lord."  The Hebrew OT name Adonai and its Greek NT counterpart Kurios describe the relationship between master and slave.  God owns all his children.   Adonai carries with it a twofold implication.  One that the master has a right to expect obedience and that the slave may expect provision. 

I agree. 

I understand that but what I'm saying is in God's eyes, there were no other gods worthy of worship.  He even said that in the 10 Commandments "Have no other gods before me."  A god is just anything we put in place of the real God.  Joshua in Chap 24 told the people to chose any god (and he names two) but he told them there is only one true God.  We can make gods of anything if we so desire.  Doesn't make them gods. 

Yes.  But I believe they came out of polytheism well before the Babylonian exile during the time of Abraham. 

I'm not sure what you mean about "strict" but I would say during the days of Moses it was pretty strict and that was before the Babylonian exile (have no other gods before me).  That was when Israel really first became a Nation. 

Yes. 

How do you know this?  Are you referring to the burning bush period? 

yes, I thought that would be helpful. 

well you can beg to differ if you wish but this is a case where you are not only having to go to the OT to prove your point but also you are leaving out much important scripture to prove your point. 

Have you ever heard of Ichabod (1 Samuel 4)?  His name means "no glory."  You can read during this time period that God's glory left the temple when the ark was stolen.  In 4:21 it says "the glory is departed from Israel."  From that point onward God's glory has NEVER been in a building and you haven't shown me where it has with your much Catholic commentary. 

And your long drawn out response (who's going to read all that) can be quelled with one scripture:

"Know you not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man defile the temple of God shall God destroy for the temple of God is holy which temple you are."  1 Cor 3:16-17 

and just for good measure I'll give you this:

"And what agrement has the temple of God with idols?  for you are the temple of the living God as God has said.  I will dwell in them and walk in them and I will be their God and they shall be my people."  2 Cor 6:16

There are lots of scripture surrounding this and not one that says that God is indwelling buildings like he did the Jewish Temple of the OT.  God does not indwell church buildings Lula even though I know the Catholics believe this as they commission and decommission God everytime they move in and out of a building. 

and has no NT basis for it.  They don't have a leg to stand on.  So they copied the OT tabernacle, so what?  God destroyed the Temple that should give you some idea that he no longer indwells buildings.  I think he made it pretty clear especially with the ripping of the veil of the Temple in 30 AD. 

We see from reading Exodus 25 that God did indeed dwell in the Tabernacle in the Jewish Temple (a building designed for the worship of God as He prescribed). But Malachais 1:11 was prophecying something else. I made the case in #66 that Malachais prophecied Christ's presence in the Tabernacle in every Catholic Church (a building for the worship of God as Christ prescribed).

Malachais whose name signifies the Angel of the Lord wrote in 400 BC and was the last of the OT prophets. His prophecy foretells the coming of Christ, the reprobation of the Jews and their sacrifices, and that God will accept of the sacrifice that shall be offered in every place among the Gentiles.

1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."

A "clean oblation" to Catholics is the precious Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass. 

How do you interpret Malachais 1:11 prophecy KFC?  

KFC POSTS:

YES, "Building" as in House of God, where we worship God according to the way He wants....first in the Old Convenant Temple, then in the New Covenant Church.

Regarding your assertion that "from 1 Samuel 4 onward God's glory has NEVER been in a building"..... If you read 2Kings 5 and 6, you'll find that near Jerusalem was Mount Sion on which David erected a splendid Tabernacle for the Ark of the Covenant. The new Tabernacle was made on the model of the old one constructed under the direction of Moses. When the Tabernacle was completed, David caused the Ark to be carried in triumpth to Mount Sion.

We know from reading 2 Kings 23, and 3 Kings 1-2, that the building of the Temple was reserved for Solomon, David's son, who was decreed by God to be David's successor. Solomon's kingdom was going to be great and powerful if he would be faithful to the Commandments of God and David certainly exhorted Solomon to serve God. David gave him gold and silver for the Sanctuary, together with the plan of the Temple and said, "God has put it into my mind."

We read on 2 Paralipomenon 6:1-2 "Then Solomon said: The Lord promised that he would dwell in a cloud. But I have built a house to his name, that he might dwell there forever......v. 10-11 The Lord therefore hath accomplished his word which he spoke: and I am risen up in the place of David my father, and sit upon the throne of Isreal, as the Lord promised, and have built a house to the name of the Lord God of Isreal. And I have put in it the Ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord...7:1-3 And when Solomon had made an end of his prayer, fire came down from heaven, and consumed the holocausts and the victims: and the majesty of the Lord filled the house. Neither could the priests enter into the Temple of the Lord because the majesty of the Lord had filled the Temple of the Lord. Moreover, all the children of Isreal saw the fire coming down and the glory of the Lord upon the house; and falling down with their faces to the ground, they adored and praised the Lord: becasue He is good, becasue his mercy endures for ever."

Now, you might have a different interpretation, but what that means to me is there was another Temple, a "building",  a House of God where the Tabernacle was and where the glory of God was upon the House.