Podcasts about Tabernacle

As Them Threedom Boys take a short hiatus, they give you a treat to tide you over: Live Comedy Bang! Bang! performance from The Tabernacle, Atlanta featuring Scott Aukerman, Lauren Lapkus as HoHo The Naughty Elf, Paul F. Tompkins as The Contraptionaire and Drew Tarver as Legendary soul singer Donny Gary.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week we look at both Exodus and Acts (Exodus 25:1-8 + Acts 5:1-11), we learn about the offerings of Tabernacle, and Ananaias and Sapphira. Chris explores what offerings are, and how we are to give them. This message will challenge your heart and stretch you.

God has a work for you to do. Question is do you know what your gifting and calling is, and are you living it out in the day to day? Today on Light on the Hill we're learning how to walk in the gifting God has given us, as we turn together to Exodus chapter 31. Now these are the final instructions that God gave for the building of the Tabernacle, but it also communicates something very important about how God chooses to move in each of our lives. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1459/29?v=20251111

God calls us and gifts us too. Now if you want a good explanation of how that actually works, turn with us to Exodus chapter 31. Pastor James Kaddis is about to draw our attention to the final instructions God gave for the building of the Tabernacle. As you'll hear momentarily it has a great deal to say about how God chooses to move in our lives. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1459/29?v=20251111

Prayer doesn't have to feel confusing, repetitive, or stuck. In this episode, Chad and Robert talk about why Sun Valley is starting the year focused on prayer and offer a simple, biblical framework that helps you connect with God in a deeper way.Subscribe to receive our latest videos!Website: https://www.sunvalleycc.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sunvalleycc/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sunvalleycc/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@sunvalleyccTo support Sun Valley and help us continue to reach people all around the world click here: https://www.sunvalleycc.com/givingGod loves you no matter who you are, what you've done, or what's been done to you. This is the vision of Sun Valley Community Church, led by Pastor Chad Moore and based in Gilbert, AZ with multiple locations throughout the Phoenix valley.Chapters:00:23 Why Start the Year With Prayer02:05 Don't Wait on a Sermon—Go Read Your Bible03:33 Why Prayer Is a Great New Year Goal04:14 The Most Important Relationship in Your Life05:16 Prayer Is Also Hearing From God05:50 Why the Bible Repeats Themes06:33 The Tabernacle and Learning to Engage With God10:37 Is God the Center of Your Life or a Hobby?12:16 The Gateway to God's Presence Begins With Gratitude13:01 Why We Sing in Church14:07 Starting Prayer With Gratitude (Even on Hard Days)18:49 Gratitude for the Small Things21:34 Thanksgiving vs Praise22:08 God's Joy, Grace, and Holiness22:49 Hell as the Absence of God's Grace24:11 Sacrifice, Sin, and Confession25:07 Jesus the Lamb of God (Hebrews)26:20 Petition and Asking God for Things27:48 Intercession and Praying for Others28:05 The Five Elements of Prayer29:31 Breakthrough Can Be Internal

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite: Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way. And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments. For the Lord had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb. And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp. And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tabernacle. And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door. And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. And Moses said unto the Lord, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight. Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people. And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence. For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth. And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name." Exodus 33:1-17

This message was delivered during our Sunday evening service on January 4, 2025. The text being expounded is Matthew 6:24-34.   To learn more about Tabernacle or access more resources, visit https://www.tabernaclebaptistchurch.com/.

This message from Pastor's sermon series "Prepare" was delivered during our Sunday morning service on January 11, 2025. The text being expounded is 1 Chronicles 22.   To learn more about Tabernacle or access more resources, visit https://www.tabernaclebaptistchurch.com/. 

Welcome to week 2 of the series about the Mosaic tabernacle.  This week, the Holy Place which is also called the inner courts.  This is where we are cleansed in the pool before we enter the Holy of Holies. Join us in person: 22811 S. Cedar Rd., Manhattan, IL 60442 Learn More: encounterthrive.com Give Online: encounterthrive.churchcenter.com/giving

What does the sanctuary candle really mean—and how can it help our children fall in love with Jesus in the Eucharist?In this powerful and heartwarming episode, we sit down with Catholic author Susan Joy Bellavance to discuss her new children's book from Sophia Institute Press, This Little Light of Thine. This beautifully illustrated story follows the sanctuary candle as it travels from church to church, gently teaching children (and adults) the profound truth it represents: Jesus Christ is truly present in the Tabernacle.Susan explains how the sanctuary candle points us to the same holy reality revealed in Scripture—from God's presence in the burning bush to His dwelling among us today in every Catholic church around the world. The book is a simple yet profound tool to help restore reverence, awe, and joy for the Eucharist, especially in the hearts of our children.But this conversation goes even deeper.Susan also shares the miraculous story that brought this book to life, along with unforgettable personal testimonies from the three years she spent discerning religious life in Mother Teresa's order. Living, praying, and serving alongside Mother Teresa herself, Susan witnessed extraordinary moments of faith, humility, and trust in God's presence—experiences that continue to shape her life and mission today.This episode will:Help parents teach children why the sanctuary candle mattersRekindle reverence for Jesus truly present in the EucharistOffer rare, firsthand stories of Mother Teresa's holiness and miraclesInspire deeper faith through powerful storytelling and witnessWhether you're a parent, catechist, or simply longing to grow in Eucharistic devotion, this episode will remind you that God is not distant—He is here, waiting for us, in every tabernacle.https://linktr.ee/bobbyfred85

Coming in at #2 Cigar of the Year for 2025 is The Tabernacle Knight Commander by Foundation Cigar Co. The Knight Commander is a limited-edition cigar measuring 6 3/4 x 52 in a perfecto shape, belonging to the Foundation's Tabernacle brand. The name “Tabernacle” refers to a biblical resting place for the Ark of the Covenant. According to legend, the Ark is said to be located in Ethiopia, which adds a rich narrative connection to The Knight Commander's story. Full Details: https://wp.me/p6h1n1-yws  

Coming in at #2 Cigar of the Year for 2025 is The Tabernacle Knight Commander by Foundation Cigar Co. The Knight Commander is a limited-edition cigar measuring 6 3/4 x 52 in a perfecto shape, belonging to the Foundation's Tabernacle brand. The name “Tabernacle” refers to a biblical resting place for the Ark of the Covenant. According to legend, the Ark is said to be located in Ethiopia, which adds a rich narrative connection to The Knight Commander's story. Full Details: https://wp.me/p6h1n1-yws

This message was delivered during our Sunday morning service on December 21, 2025. The texts being expounded are Romans 6:23 & John 3:16.   To learn more about Tabernacle or access more resources, visit https://www.tabernaclebaptistchurch.com/. 

This message was delivered during our Sunday morning service on December 28, 2025. The text being expounded is Lamentations 3:19-27.   To learn more about Tabernacle or access more resources, visit https://www.tabernaclebaptistchurch.com/. 

This message was delivered during our Sunday morning service on January 4, 2025. The text being expounded is Psalm 32.   To learn more about Tabernacle or access more resources, visit https://www.tabernaclebaptistchurch.com/. 

During the period when the Tabernacle stood in Nov and Givon, it was permitted to offer sacrifices on private bamot. This is derived from Devarim 12:9: "For you have not yet arrived at the menucha and the nachala." Menucha refers to Shiloh, and nachala refers to Jerusalem. The additional word "to" between them serves to separate the two stages, indicating that bamot were permitted in the interim period. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yochanan why maaser sheni is not mentioned in the Mishna regarding the period of Nov and Givon. Rabbi Yochanan answered that when there is no Ark, there is no maaser sheni, based on a gezeira shava linking the two. When Reish Lakish challenges this - arguing that according to that gezeira shava, the Pesach offering and other sacrificial foods should also not be eaten - Rabbi Yochanan offers a different explanation: the Mishna follows Rabbi Shimon's view that only obligatory sacrifices with a fixed time were brought, which excludes animal tithes. Since maaser sheni (grain tithes) is comparable to animal tithes, it too would not apply. According to this second explanation, Rabbi Yehuda would hold that maaser sheni was brought during the period of Nov and Givon, a view supported by a statement of Rav Ada and a braita cited by Rav Yosef. Although the verse in Devarim 12:9 was initially explained as referring to Shilo and Jerusalem through the terms menucha and nachala, three additional interpretations are presented, each examined in the context of the verse. The Mishna states that one who consecrates an animal for sacrifice at a time when bamot are permitted, but offers it when bamot are forbidden, is not liable for karet. Rav Kahana limits this exemption to slaughtering outside the Temple; one who actually offers the sacrifice outside is liable for karet. After Rav Kahana explains his derivation, Raba rejects his position on two grounds. The Mishna lists several differences between the sacrificial procedures on the large bama and on smaller bamot. The Gemara provides the Torah sources for each distinction. Two versions are recorded regarding a limitation taught by Rami bar Hama, and a braita is cited to either challenge or support his view. Finally, an alternative position is presented in the name of Rabbi Elazar.

  Rabbi Zeira raises the question of an offering designated for a private altar: if it was slaughtered on the private altar, then brought into the Tabernacle, and afterward taken back out, must it now be returned to the Tabernacle and treated like a public‑altar sacrifice with all its associated requirements? Initially, the Gemara suggests that this issue might hinge on the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef regarding high level sanctity offerings that were slaughtered in the South instead of the required Northern area and were then mistakenly placed on the altar. Ultimately, however, the Gemara distinguishes between the two cases and rejects the comparison. Another discussion concerns a sacrifice slaughtered at night on a private altar. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether such an offering is valid. Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan also dispute whether burnt offerings brought on private altars require hefshet and nituach - flaying and cutting into pieces - just as they do on the public altar. Although private altars operate with fewer restrictions, several laws apply equally to both private and public offerings. A braita entertains the possibility that time‑based limitations might not apply to private‑altar sacrifices, just as spatial limitations do not. However, a verse is cited to demonstrate that time restrictions indeed remain binding even for offerings brought on private altars.

Prayer is not casual access—it was made possible through sacrifice. In this message, we explore the Bronze Altar and the cost of approaching a holy God, tracing how the Tabernacle points to the cross of Christ. As we rediscover the cost of prayer, we are invited to experience its true power through confession, forgiveness, and restored fellowship with God.

  Rabbi Zeira raises the question of an offering designated for a private altar: if it was slaughtered on the private altar, then brought into the Tabernacle, and afterward taken back out, must it now be returned to the Tabernacle and treated like a public‑altar sacrifice with all its associated requirements? Initially, the Gemara suggests that this issue might hinge on the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef regarding high level sanctity offerings that were slaughtered in the South instead of the required Northern area and were then mistakenly placed on the altar. Ultimately, however, the Gemara distinguishes between the two cases and rejects the comparison. Another discussion concerns a sacrifice slaughtered at night on a private altar. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether such an offering is valid. Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan also dispute whether burnt offerings brought on private altars require hefshet and nituach - flaying and cutting into pieces - just as they do on the public altar. Although private altars operate with fewer restrictions, several laws apply equally to both private and public offerings. A braita entertains the possibility that time‑based limitations might not apply to private‑altar sacrifices, just as spatial limitations do not. However, a verse is cited to demonstrate that time restrictions indeed remain binding even for offerings brought on private altars.

During the period when the Tabernacle stood in Nov and Givon, it was permitted to offer sacrifices on private bamot. This is derived from Devarim 12:9: "For you have not yet arrived at the menucha and the nachala." Menucha refers to Shiloh, and nachala refers to Jerusalem. The additional word "to" between them serves to separate the two stages, indicating that bamot were permitted in the interim period. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yochanan why maaser sheni is not mentioned in the Mishna regarding the period of Nov and Givon. Rabbi Yochanan answered that when there is no Ark, there is no maaser sheni, based on a gezeira shava linking the two. When Reish Lakish challenges this - arguing that according to that gezeira shava, the Pesach offering and other sacrificial foods should also not be eaten - Rabbi Yochanan offers a different explanation: the Mishna follows Rabbi Shimon's view that only obligatory sacrifices with a fixed time were brought, which excludes animal tithes. Since maaser sheni (grain tithes) is comparable to animal tithes, it too would not apply. According to this second explanation, Rabbi Yehuda would hold that maaser sheni was brought during the period of Nov and Givon, a view supported by a statement of Rav Ada and a braita cited by Rav Yosef. Although the verse in Devarim 12:9 was initially explained as referring to Shilo and Jerusalem through the terms menucha and nachala, three additional interpretations are presented, each examined in the context of the verse. The Mishna states that one who consecrates an animal for sacrifice at a time when bamot are permitted, but offers it when bamot are forbidden, is not liable for karet. Rav Kahana limits this exemption to slaughtering outside the Temple; one who actually offers the sacrifice outside is liable for karet. After Rav Kahana explains his derivation, Raba rejects his position on two grounds. The Mishna lists several differences between the sacrificial procedures on the large bama and on smaller bamot. The Gemara provides the Torah sources for each distinction. Two versions are recorded regarding a limitation taught by Rami bar Hama, and a braita is cited to either challenge or support his view. Finally, an alternative position is presented in the name of Rabbi Elazar.

https://www.salemtabernacle.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Epiphanyupdate.png January 11, 2026 – Epiphany – Baptism of our Lord false no 43:40 Salem Tabernacle

The Old Testament tabernacle points us to God's holiness, helpfulness, and heavenliness. Today, Daniel Hyde explains how God provided the tabernacle to teach truths concerning Himself and the way He relates to His people. For your donation of any amount, get Daniel Hyde's book God in Our Midst and the video teaching series on DVD. You'll also receive lifetime digital access to all 12 messages and the study guide: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4565/transaction   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request the ebook, digital teaching series, and digital study guide with your donation: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Meet Today's Teacher:   Daniel Hyde is pastor of Oceanside United Reformed Church in Carlsbad, CA.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of media for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai held that during the period of the Temple there were four distinct "camps," since the Ezrat Nashim constituted its own camp. However, in the period of Shilo there were only two camps. The Gemara struggles to identify which camp, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, did not exist in Shilo, since the Torah clearly assigns separate zones for each category of impurity - one who is impure from contact with a corpse, a zav, and a leper - implying the need for three distinct camps. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Shimon's statement refers to an entirely different issue: during the period of Shilo, the Levite area did not function as a place of refuge for someone who killed unintentionally. This implies that in the wilderness the Levite camp did serve as a refuge zone, a point further supported by derashot on Shemot 21:13. A braita presents five different rabbinic opinions regarding which sacrifices were offered during the fourteen years after entering the Land, when the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal. Some maintain that only voluntary offerings brought by individuals were permitted. Rabbi Meir holds that meal offerings and Nazirite offerings were also brought. Rabbi Yehuda adds that even obligatory offerings could be brought in the Tabernacle (bama gedola), distinguishing between the central sanctuary and other locations. Rabbi Shimon limits which public offerings were brought. The Gemara then cites the scriptural basis for Rabbi Meir's position. Shmuel restricts the dispute between the rabbis and Rabbi Meir specifically to the obligatory offerings of a Nazirite. However, after Rava introduces a contradictory braita, the Gemara revises Shmuel's statement, concluding that the dispute concerns specifically the voluntary offerings of a Nazirite. The Gemara brings a source from the Torah for the opinion of the rabbis (the second view) in the braita.

The Gemara explains the basis of the disagreement in the braita between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and how the second position of the Rabbis differs from the first position in the name of the rabbis in that same braita. Rabbi Shimon's source in the Torah for his view limiting the communal offerings brought in Gilgal is a verse in Yehoshua 5:10, which describes the Jews bringing the Paschal offering just a few days after crossing the Jordan River into the Land of Israel.  The reason the structure of Shilo was built with stone walls while its ceiling was only a curtain is derived from seemingly contradictory verses - some referring to Shilo as a "house" and others as a "tent." Four rabbis each cite a different verse to explain the law that during the period when the Tabernacle stood in Shilo, kodshim kalim and maaser sheni could be eaten anywhere within sight of Shilo. There is also a debate about whether the Tabernacle in Shilo was located in the territory of Yosef or Binyamin.  A braita discusses how many years the Tabernacle remained in each location and explains the calculations: thirty-nine years in the desert, fourteen in Gilgal, fifty-seven in Nov and Givon, and three hundred sixty-nine in Shilo.

The Gemara explains the basis of the disagreement in the braita between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and how the second position of the Rabbis differs from the first position in the name of the rabbis in that same braita. Rabbi Shimon's source in the Torah for his view limiting the communal offerings brought in Gilgal is a verse in Yehoshua 5:10, which describes the Jews bringing the Paschal offering just a few days after crossing the Jordan River into the Land of Israel.  The reason the structure of Shilo was built with stone walls while its ceiling was only a curtain is derived from seemingly contradictory verses - some referring to Shilo as a "house" and others as a "tent." Four rabbis each cite a different verse to explain the law that during the period when the Tabernacle stood in Shilo, kodshim kalim and maaser sheni could be eaten anywhere within sight of Shilo. There is also a debate about whether the Tabernacle in Shilo was located in the territory of Yosef or Binyamin.  A braita discusses how many years the Tabernacle remained in each location and explains the calculations: thirty-nine years in the desert, fourteen in Gilgal, fifty-seven in Nov and Givon, and three hundred sixty-nine in Shilo.

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai held that during the period of the Temple there were four distinct "camps," since the Ezrat Nashim constituted its own camp. However, in the period of Shilo there were only two camps. The Gemara struggles to identify which camp, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, did not exist in Shilo, since the Torah clearly assigns separate zones for each category of impurity - one who is impure from contact with a corpse, a zav, and a leper - implying the need for three distinct camps. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Shimon's statement refers to an entirely different issue: during the period of Shilo, the Levite area did not function as a place of refuge for someone who killed unintentionally. This implies that in the wilderness the Levite camp did serve as a refuge zone, a point further supported by derashot on Shemot 21:13. A braita presents five different rabbinic opinions regarding which sacrifices were offered during the fourteen years after entering the Land, when the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal. Some maintain that only voluntary offerings brought by individuals were permitted. Rabbi Meir holds that meal offerings and Nazirite offerings were also brought. Rabbi Yehuda adds that even obligatory offerings could be brought in the Tabernacle (bama gedola), distinguishing between the central sanctuary and other locations. Rabbi Shimon limits which public offerings were brought. The Gemara then cites the scriptural basis for Rabbi Meir's position. Shmuel restricts the dispute between the rabbis and Rabbi Meir specifically to the obligatory offerings of a Nazirite. However, after Rava introduces a contradictory braita, the Gemara revises Shmuel's statement, concluding that the dispute concerns specifically the voluntary offerings of a Nazirite. The Gemara brings a source from the Torah for the opinion of the rabbis (the second view) in the braita.

What biblical passage would you say best teaches about our redemption in Christ? Today, Daniel Hyde uses the Old Testament tabernacle to instruct us about the triune God, our sin, His saving grace, and how we are to serve Him. For your donation of any amount, get Daniel Hyde's book God in Our Midst and the video teaching series on DVD. You'll also receive lifetime digital access to all 12 messages and the study guide: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4565/transaction   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request the ebook, digital teaching series, and digital study guide with your donation: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global   Meet Today's Teacher:   Daniel Hyde is pastor of Oceanside United Reformed Church in Carlsbad, CA.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of media for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

Before the Tabernacle was erected, even blemished animals or male or female could be offered as sacrifices. This is derived from the juxtaposition of animals to birds in Bereishit 8:20, which describes the offerings Noach brought after the Flood; since blemishes do not disqualify birds and females can be brought as burnt offerings, they likewise did not disqualify blemished animals or females. However, if an animal was missing a limb, it could not be offered. This is learned from Bereishit 6:19, "From all live animals," implying that only fully intact animals were acceptable. The Gemara asks why this verse is not used to exclude a treifa, and answers by identifying a different source for excluding a treifa. Only kosher animals could be offered, even before the Tabernacle was built. But since this was before the Torah was given, how could there be a distinction between kosher and non‑kosher animals? Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani explains that the distinction refers to animals that would eventually be considered kosher. Noach brought two of each species into the Ark, but of the kosher species he brought seven of each so that he would have animals available for sacrifice after the Flood. How did Noach know which animals would later be deemed kosher? Either this was revealed miraculously, or the animals entered the Ark on their own, with the kosher species arriving in groups of seven while the non‑kosher species arrived only in pairs. There is a tannaitic dispute regarding whether, before the Tabernacle was erected, people brought only burnt offerings or also peace offerings. This debate hinges on whether the descendants of Noach were permitted to bring peace offerings, a question derived from Hevel's sacrifice - specifically the phrase "from the fat thereof" - and from a verse in Shir HaShirim 4:16. A challenge is raised against the opinion that peace offerings were not brought, based on Yitro's offering of peace offerings. The resolution depends on whether Yitro's sacrifice occurred before or after the giving of the Torah. Indeed, there is a tannaitic dispute about the timing of Yitro's arrival, rooted in the question of what he heard that motivated him to come and convert: Israel's victory over Amalek, the giving of the Torah, or the splitting of the Sea. Non‑Jews may offer sacrifices anywhere and at any time, since the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Temple applies only to Jews. However, Jews may not serve as their agents in performing the sacrifice. The Gemara relates a story about Ofrah Hermiz, the mother of the Persian king Shapur, who asked him to bring a sacrifice on her behalf. Rava advised her on the matter but arranged for non‑Jews to perform the actual sacrificial act. In the desert, the Israelites were permitted to eat kodashim kalim anywhere within the camp. Rav Huna stated that they could eat them anywhere that Jews were present. The rabbis sought to clarify his statement, given that the desert encampment clearly consisted of distinct camps, while his words seemed to imply otherwise.

WE'RE NEVER ALONE ( THE TABERNACLE IS THE SHADOW, WE ARE THE SUBSTANCE )

Before the Tabernacle was erected, even blemished animals or male or female could be offered as sacrifices. This is derived from the juxtaposition of animals to birds in Bereishit 8:20, which describes the offerings Noach brought after the Flood; since blemishes do not disqualify birds and females can be brought as burnt offerings, they likewise did not disqualify blemished animals or females. However, if an animal was missing a limb, it could not be offered. This is learned from Bereishit 6:19, "From all live animals," implying that only fully intact animals were acceptable. The Gemara asks why this verse is not used to exclude a treifa, and answers by identifying a different source for excluding a treifa. Only kosher animals could be offered, even before the Tabernacle was built. But since this was before the Torah was given, how could there be a distinction between kosher and non‑kosher animals? Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani explains that the distinction refers to animals that would eventually be considered kosher. Noach brought two of each species into the Ark, but of the kosher species he brought seven of each so that he would have animals available for sacrifice after the Flood. How did Noach know which animals would later be deemed kosher? Either this was revealed miraculously, or the animals entered the Ark on their own, with the kosher species arriving in groups of seven while the non‑kosher species arrived only in pairs. There is a tannaitic dispute regarding whether, before the Tabernacle was erected, people brought only burnt offerings or also peace offerings. This debate hinges on whether the descendants of Noach were permitted to bring peace offerings, a question derived from Hevel's sacrifice - specifically the phrase "from the fat thereof" - and from a verse in Shir HaShirim 4:16. A challenge is raised against the opinion that peace offerings were not brought, based on Yitro's offering of peace offerings. The resolution depends on whether Yitro's sacrifice occurred before or after the giving of the Torah. Indeed, there is a tannaitic dispute about the timing of Yitro's arrival, rooted in the question of what he heard that motivated him to come and convert: Israel's victory over Amalek, the giving of the Torah, or the splitting of the Sea. Non‑Jews may offer sacrifices anywhere and at any time, since the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Temple applies only to Jews. However, Jews may not serve as their agents in performing the sacrifice. The Gemara relates a story about Ofrah Hermiz, the mother of the Persian king Shapur, who asked him to bring a sacrifice on her behalf. Rava advised her on the matter but arranged for non‑Jews to perform the actual sacrificial act. In the desert, the Israelites were permitted to eat kodashim kalim anywhere within the camp. Rav Huna stated that they could eat them anywhere that Jews were present. The rabbis sought to clarify his statement, given that the desert encampment clearly consisted of distinct camps, while his words seemed to imply otherwise.

Jean Baptiste's crime of robbing graves shocked Salt Lake City in the 1860s. This history mystery offers insight into the way a community deals with the unthinkable. Research: Devitry-Smith, John. “The Saint and the grave Robber.” BYU Studies Quarterly. Volume 33, Issue 1. January 1, 1993. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2856&context=byusq “Exciting and terrifying Occurences.” The Deseret News. Jan. 22, 1862. https://www.newspapers.com/image/286318980/?match=1&terms=%22moroni%20clawson%22 “A Gruesome Tale.” Salt Lake herald. April 2, 1893. https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=11053821 Ison, Yvette D. “Unsolved Mysteries in Utah—The Bizarre Case of Grave Robber Jean Baptiste.” History Blazer. March 1995. Utah History to Go. https://historytogo.utah.gov/jean-baptiste/ Morgan, Dale L. “The Great Salt Lake.” New York. Bobbs-Merrill. 1947. “Robber of the Dead.” Deseret Evening News. May 27, 1893. https://www.newspapers.com/image/73717015/?match=1&terms=jean%20baptiste%20grave%20robber Van Leer, Twyla. “HISTORY OF GRAVE ROBBER IS BURIED IN MYSTERY.” Deseret News. May 30, 1995. https://www.deseret.com/1995/5/30/19215360/history-of-grave-robber-is-buried-in-mystery/ Watt, G.D. “Remarks by President Brigham Young, Tabernacle, Feb. 9th, 186.” The Deseret News. March 26, 1862. https://www.newspapers.com/image/286319797/?match=1&terms=%22baptiste%22 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listeners call with concerns over Eucharistic ministers, murmured conversations during prayer, hand gestures at Mass, and even applause after hymns, while Patrick addresses each with candor, encouragement, and practical suggestions—never shying from the tricky nuances of Church teaching or daily life. Patrick shares a story about speaking at a parish when a Mormon gentleman came up to ask him about “the little curtsey” he did in front of the Tabernacle. (01:31) Maria - I was invited to be a Eucharistic Minister, but I have reservations. I see things that are not right. Is it a sin not to do it? (07:45) Cindy - I agree that it is sad that a lot of Catholics don't believe in the Eucharist. I had a dream that I was in Church and was seeing they were giving Communion to people and I saw the face of Jesus in the Eucharist. Why would I dream this? (15:46) Dave - I love the reverence of the Eucharist, but when people do things like the 'unicycle' it can scare people away. I wish we were consistent with what the Church does. (17:58) Linda - My kids used to say, 'We don't understand' why we have to dress up for Mass. (22:11) John - I am a Eucharist minister. I do give a blessing. It is really not the person giving the blessing, as the blessing is really from God. It is just like saying 'God bless you'. (26:36) Maria - People talking very loudly at Mass makes it hard to concentrate. Is it ok to tell people to be quiet? (37:26) Fr. Mark (email) – There can be confusion about convalidation… (47:32)

The Mishna rules that one who offers the leper's guilt offering outside the Azara before the proper time for the owner to bring it (i.e., before the eighth day of purification) is exempt from liability. Rav Chilkiya bar Tuvi limits this exemption to a case where the offering was brought for its own sake. If, however, it was offered not for its own sake, one would be liable for offering it outside, since such an offering could theoretically be valid if brought inside. Rav Huna disagrees with Rav Chilkiya. He maintains that if an offering cannot be brought for its own sake - because its proper time has not yet arrived - it also cannot be accepted when brought for the sake of a different sacrifice. A challenge is raised against Rav Huna from the case of the Pesach offering, which, when brought at a time other than Pesach, is offered as a peace offering even though it cannot be brought as a Pesach. This challenge is rejected, as the Pesach offering is unique: an animal designated as a Pesach automatically assumes the status of a peace offering on all other days of the year. Three sources are cited in support of Rav Chilkiya's position. The first two are dismissed as inconclusive, but the third appears to confirm his view, both according to Rav Dimi and Rav Ashi. An interpretation is brought that reconciles even this final source with Rav Huna's position. A braita derives scriptural sources for the Mishna's rulings that one is exempt from liability for offering outside items that are meant to be eaten, as well as for performing actions that do not constitute the final stage of the sacrificial service. The Mishna further states that the firstborns served as priests until the construction of the Tabernacle, at which point the kohanim replaced them. Rav Huna, however, asserts that the kohanim began their service earlier - at the time the Torah was given, nearly ten months before the Tabernacle was erected. This apparent contradiction is resolved by noting that the matter is the subject of a tannaitic dispute.

1 Peter 2:4-12 (ESV)Andrew, Isack, and Edwin discuss our place in Peter's metaphor of God's household. We are the living stones built together to make up the temple and dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.Read the written devo that goes along with this episode by clicking here.    Let us know what you are learning or any questions you have. Email us at TextTalk@ChristiansMeetHere.org.    Join the Facebook community and join the conversation by clicking here. We'd love to meet you. Be a guest among the Christians who meet on Livingston Avenue. Click here to find out more. Michael Eldridge sang all four parts of our theme song. Find more from him by clicking here.   Thanks for talking about the text with us today.________________________________________________If the hyperlinks do not work, copy the following addresses and paste them into the URL bar of your web browser: Daily Written Devo: https://readthebiblemakedisciples.wordpress.com/?p=23995The Christians Who Meet on Livingston Avenue: http://www.christiansmeethere.org/Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/TalkAboutTheTextFacebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/texttalkMichael Eldridge: https://acapeldridge.com/ 

A dispute over whether one is liable for slaughtering a premature guilt-offering outside of the Temple - a very specific case. Also, if what you slaughter isn't fit to be a Temple offering to begin with, for example, than there's no liability. Plus, offerings that were allowed to be brought outside of the courtyard (or, rather, the Tabernacle) because it hadn't yet been established as the sole location for this. Thus, in the wilderness - offerings were made in the Tent of the Meeting, and largely by the class of the first born, rather than the kohanim. At least, until the kohanim were established at the day of establishing the Tabernacle itself. Also, the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, their father's reaction, their uncle's reaction, and what it means to sanctify God in their deaths.

Welcome back and Happy New Year!  This is week 1 of a new series about the tabernacle, the Israelites mobile church (something Thrive sure can appreciate).  There are three main areas to it; on this first week, we explore the outer court yard. Kutless has a great song about this called Take Me In from their first worship album called Strong Tower, it's a great listen! Join us in person: 22811 S. Cedar Rd., Manhattan, IL 60442 Learn More: encounterthrive.com Give Online: encounterthrive.churchcenter.com/giving

The Mishna rules that one who offers the leper's guilt offering outside the Azara before the proper time for the owner to bring it (i.e., before the eighth day of purification) is exempt from liability. Rav Chilkiya bar Tuvi limits this exemption to a case where the offering was brought for its own sake. If, however, it was offered not for its own sake, one would be liable for offering it outside, since such an offering could theoretically be valid if brought inside. Rav Huna disagrees with Rav Chilkiya. He maintains that if an offering cannot be brought for its own sake - because its proper time has not yet arrived - it also cannot be accepted when brought for the sake of a different sacrifice. A challenge is raised against Rav Huna from the case of the Pesach offering, which, when brought at a time other than Pesach, is offered as a peace offering even though it cannot be brought as a Pesach. This challenge is rejected, as the Pesach offering is unique: an animal designated as a Pesach automatically assumes the status of a peace offering on all other days of the year. Three sources are cited in support of Rav Chilkiya's position. The first two are dismissed as inconclusive, but the third appears to confirm his view, both according to Rav Dimi and Rav Ashi. An interpretation is brought that reconciles even this final source with Rav Huna's position. A braita derives scriptural sources for the Mishna's rulings that one is exempt from liability for offering outside items that are meant to be eaten, as well as for performing actions that do not constitute the final stage of the sacrificial service. The Mishna further states that the firstborns served as priests until the construction of the Tabernacle, at which point the kohanim replaced them. Rav Huna, however, asserts that the kohanim began their service earlier - at the time the Torah was given, nearly ten months before the Tabernacle was erected. This apparent contradiction is resolved by noting that the matter is the subject of a tannaitic dispute.

This episode dives into the high-profile prophetic words for 2025 released by Cindy Jacobs and the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders—and asks the hard question: what actually came to pass, and what didn't?In this Remnant Radio conversation, Joshua Lewis, Michael Rowntree, and Michael Miller walk through the major 2025 prophecies from Cindy Jacobs and ACPE, examining themes like national shaking, global conflict, economic turbulence, spiritual warfare, and calls to intercession and repentance. Using Scripture as the plumb line, they explore how Christians should approach national-level prophetic words, how to test them, and what it really means to practice prophetic accountability in the local church and the broader body of Christ.The guys discuss the tension between honoring prophetic ministry and refusing to give in to spiritual hype, asking honest questions about what to do when timing, details, or outcomes don't match what was proclaimed. If you care about Christian theology, charismatic gifts, and the future of prophetic ministry, this episode will help you think more clearly about modern prophecy, discernment, and integrity in the prophetic movement. Join the dialogue as Remnant Radio continues to pursue that radical middle—fully open to the Holy Spirit, fully anchored in the Word.Reviewing Prophecies Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMsjeViSScFHAxEWVUTMiJvLHWHF7hOE10:00 – Introduction 4:30 – Psalm 25 and numerology-based themes for 20256:44 – “Reset of the nations” and Trump as “wartime president” 10:38 – War intensifying, spiritual warfare framing, and burdens on intercessors15:03 – Strategic-level spiritual warfare and worship/Tabernacle of David critique26:28 – “Enforcing victory,” economic collapse warnings, and Haman's sons as “principalities”48:11 – Israel, eschatology, and nationalism in prophetic words1:07:41 – Final exhortations on testing prophecySubscribe to The Remnant Radio newsletter and receive our FREE introduction to spiritual gifts eBook. Plus, get access to: discounts, news about upcoming shows, courses and conferences - and more. Subscribe now at TheRemnantRadio.com. Support the showABOUT THE REMNANT RADIO:

We're about to pick up where we left off in Exodus. Lately we've been learning about the Tabernacle and all that it represents. Today we want to draw your attention to the Altar of burnt offering, the courtyard for the Tabernacle, and the oil for the Lampstand that would keep their lamps burning from evening till morning. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1459/29?v=20251111

1. In his sermon today, Tim pointed out that the writer of John didn't say that The Word came into the darkness and then eradicated all darkness. Instead, Tim noted that God seems to want us to spend about half our time in the darkness. He theorized that maybe it's because God understands that darkness is a necessary part of our lives, and that it's necessary specifically for teaching us certain things we: the kinds of things we can lean and rely on.How do you respond to these ideas? How comfortable are you with the idea of darkness in our lives as a necessity?What do you make of the suggestion that we can learn certain things [only in] in the dark, and that those things are the kinds of things we can learn and rely on?What have you learned in your own periods of darkness? Can you identify some that are now part of how support yourself and keep yourself upright? Do you think you could have learned those same things without the darkness in which you learned them? Why or why not?2. Tim later talked about the idea of “enemy-making-spaces.” He talked about them as spaces where people are convinced that their side is full of goodness and light, and that others are full of darkness. These are often religious types, full of certitudes, unable to see their own darkness and/or acknowledge the lessons to be learned in it.What is your experience with spaces like this? How easily can you identify them in your past, or in your present sphere of exposure? What kinds of emotions surface as you reflect on these spaces? What shifts do you feel and sense in your body?Of these spaces, Tim said, “these spaces are efficient… they give clarity and something to do with our anger. Enemy-making-spaces let us discharge our pain without having to examine it.”How do you respond to this characterization? What resonates for you? What feels true? What feels confusing? Where do you feel resistance?3. Throughout his sermon, Tim highlighted John's presentation of Jesus as tabernacle, and tabernacle as essentially the opposite of enemy-making-space.Tim said that tabernacle is a space…Where God's presence can be noticed and practiced…and felt. Where a relationship with God can be re-learned. Of vulnerability & friendship.Where humans can slowly get used to being truly seen and known as we are - without needing to reach for fig-leaves or weapons.Where God can be with us, instead of over us. Jesus' presence, by John's telling, is the reality of God tabernacling again. And with God meeting us again, in human flesh, here on earth, God's response to our brokenness was forgiveness. Tim pointed out that, even before the death & resurrection, Jesus just kept telling people that their sins were forgiven in acts of unending grace. How do you respond to this picture of Jesus as a tabernacle-space brought to life among us? How does that affect your understanding of Jesus? Of his presence here on earth? Of the gospel story? What does it make you feel or think about how God sees and responds to you - in your darkness and in your light?What does it look like for us, as the church, to continue to act as a tabernacle space for the world and darkness around us? How can we show up as re-presenters of that same forgiveness and love? Practically speaking, how do we create that tabernacle space while also acknowledging the darkness, and maybe even its necessity? while also being a space for the brightness of God's light to be seen in the midst of the darkest nights? What does that vision ask of us? What does that vision ask of you?

WE'RE NEVER ALONE ( THE TABERNACLE IS THE SHADOW ,WE ARE THE SUBSTANCE)

With Pastor Ron HammondsVisit cotr.com for more resources and sermons from GTCOTR.

The Word made flesh. On this second Sunday of Christmastide, Rev. Robert Brown shared from the prologue to John's Gospel, one of the most magisterial and theologically rich passages in all the New Testament. These carefully crafted words are often the first that new Christians read in the Bible. John uses "simple," familiar words-- words that new Christians can be nourished by. Yet they are words that even many lifetimes of study and meditation could not possibly plumb the depths of. Woven into its tapestry are some of the most intricate designs and vibrant colors one could possibly imagine: teaching about the very being of the triune God; creation and new creation; the Light of the world shining in the darkness;  the Gospel's purpose; the Incarnation of the divine Word; the Word made flesh, God dwelling with his people, the sacred tabernacle--the nexus between heaven and earth--embodied in Jesus, the God-man. This sermon is a quick guided tour beneath the surface of some of those familiar words, phrases, and concepts in an attempt to whet our appetites for a rich feast of meditative contemplation and--by the power of the Spirit--consideration of the written incarnate Word in our own lives. Note: The artwork associated  with this podcast (viewable on the Epiclesis website but not through Apple iTunes) is titled "The Word Made Flesh" by Donald Jackson.

John 1: 1-18 Susan Scott reminded us of a powerful image from this week's scripture in John where Jesus became flesh and "tabernacled with us." Jumping back in time to Exodus, God instructs the chosen people in great detail on how to build a portable tabernacle, a sanctuary, for God to dwell in, but only a very select few people could enter. Later the tabernacle is built in stone in Jerusalem with the holy of holies that contains the Ark of the Covenant and God's presence, but is destroyed by the Babylonians and then rebuilt when the Israelites return from captivity. During Jesus' time Herod massively expanded the temple, but the building had no Ark, no cloud of glory, no miracles, and no prophesies like the first one - a silence of 4 centuries. The high priesthood was corrupt and under the influence of the Roman occupiers. Into this darkness, John tells us that the long awaited return of God's glory to the temple has been fulfilled by Jesus, to an extant even greater than that of the first temple. But God is doing something new, amazing, and unexpected this time. Instead of being reserved for an elite few, God's glory now walks without elaborate trappings among all the people, prophesying and doing great miracles. As the short, dim days of winter continue, take some time to reflect on the bright glory of Jesus in our lives - God tabernacling with us, not apart from us.

https://www.salemtabernacle.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Untitled-2-2025-12-27T142642.505.png January 4, 2026 – Christmas false no 45:08 Salem Tabernacle

In this episode of The Gateway to Joy Podcast, we begin our series on A Peaceful Heart (www.elisabethelliot.org/tfg). We share Gateway to Joy radio programs: - A Peaceful Heart-1 Home as a Tabernacle for God - A Peaceful Heart-2_Prayer We also hear from special guest: - Kathy Gilbert --------- Special thanks to Mike Dize and the Bible Broadcasting Network. Theme music: John Hanson. To leave a comment about Elisabeth and her ministry, you can go to elisabethelliot.org/share-a-message Visit www.ElisabethElliot.org for more lectures, devotionals, videos, Gateway to Joy programs, and other resources.

Today on Light on the Hill we're going to talk about the Tabernacle being manufactured and assembled. It's more than just simple construction. It relates to a calling and a purpose. What's even more critical is understanding why it needed to exist and the significance it bears for those who built and used it! To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1459/29?v=20251111

Join Rabbi Schneider inside of a life sized replica of the Tabernacle and venture inside of the Holy of Holies, where God's presence used to dwell on earth. Learn how God has made a way for you to enter into His presence. **** BECOME A MONTHLY PARTNER - https://djj.show/YTAPartner  **** DONATE - https://djj.show/YTADonate  **** TEACHING NOTES - https://djj.show/1hj 

Join Rabbi in Israel and journey into a life sized replica one of the most intimate structures between God and man – The Tabernacle of Moses and learn the principles of how to dwell with God.  **** BECOME A MONTHLY PARTNER - https://djj.show/YTAPartner  **** DONATE - https://djj.show/YTADonate  **** TEACHING NOTES - https://djj.show/ij7 

For more than 30 years, Richard Elliott has inspired audiences worldwide as an organist for The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Elliott was introduced to and baptized as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while studying for his undergraduate degree. He later served a mission in Argentina, married his wife, Elizabeth, in the Washington D.C. Temple and taught as an assistant professor of organ at Brigham Young University. Today, Elliott is the Church’s principal organist for The Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra at Temple Square. He joins Church News editor Ryan Jensen on this episode of the Church News podcast to discuss the power of music and conversion to Christ. The Church News Podcast is a weekly podcast that invites listeners to make a journey of connection with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints across the globe. Hosts Jon Ryan Jensen, editor of the Church News, and Church News reporter Mary Richards share unique views of the stories, events, and people who form this international faith. With each episode, listeners are asked to embark on a journey to learn from one another and ponder, “What do I know now?” because of the experience. Produced by KellieAnn Halvorsen.