The stone which the builders rejected

[Tomas Lipps <tmlipps@zzzzzzzzzzzzz>]

in response to Bruce's thoughts, or some of them:

ah, so,  the Christ stone was rejected by the Israelite priests (masons) as
unfit for use in the temple.  in their judgement, unsound, unworthy.

as George said, the may have been unaware of the Christone's intrinsic
value. or all too aware.

 from their point of view to use it, to accept him, would have required in an
major change in the temple's design to say the least. (so maybe size was at
issue, it (he) was too  B I G !)

This from Allen who first posed the question:

"My idea about the stone that was rejected was that most stone have a grain
in them that makes them easy to cut or shape. I believe that some stone
either have no grain or the grain is so tight that it can not be cut easily.
If it has no grain or a very tight grain, then the stress of being a
cornerstone would not make it easily sheared under the load of a corner
stone. I know the stone represents Christ but it has a relationship with the
characteristic of that day with the stone the Builder has rejected and used
for a cornerstone. I understand that some cornerstones are as large as
7'x17'.  Thank all your guys for their responds I appreciate all of them
taking the time."

and I thank all who responded.  an interesting conversation. what will we
talk about next, the altar that Jehovah commanded to be built of stones
untouched by metal tools?

Tomas