View Poll Results: Who is the bride?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • The church only

    3 27.27%
  • The 144,000 only

    1 9.09%
  • All believers

    7 63.64%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 58 of 58

Thread: Who is the bride?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,412

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    I understand that, but what makes you think someone else is going to be His bride? Both O.T. and N.T. are about Israel except for the later letters of Paul. This is rejected by just about the whole of Christianity, but look how divided that is.



    But what has the bride (an earthly group) got to do with the Body of Christ? Nothing. What has this to do with Israel? Nothing as well. You seem to be unaware of the groups God has in His Scripture. I've mentioned them before: Child of God, son of God, adult man of God. This is the road of salvation.



    Anybody created directly by God is called a son of God. If we reach that stage — by faith — we become a new creation directly created by God, therefore a son of God. I'm not sure what this has to do with the bride, an earthly group.



    The rebirth or regeneration is what puts one in the « child of God » position, there we can believe that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah (1 John 5:1). This is the gospel preached to Israel by Jesus and the 12. Paul in his first 7 letters tries to educate to sonship, the new creation, which is something completely different.

    The parable of Matthew 22, is explaining it. The King is God, the Son is Christ, for Him the wedding was prepared. A part of Israel that accepts Him as Messiah is the Bride. We do not see this here, however. First in the future the Wedding is held, Rev. 19. The servants go three times, twice to the same people, once, after their destruction and the burning of their city, at the exits of the roads. The guests did not want to come. The announcement of the Wedding had thus already taken place. That was the Eastern custom. Often more than half a year before such a regal wedding was announced. They therefore had plenty of time to prepare. The first invitation was now made by John, the friend of the Bridegroom, by Jesus and his 12 Apostles and the 70 sent. The invited, however, made them wait. When the oxen and fatted beasts are slaughtered and all things are already ready, they are again invited, but they did not want to come. That characterizes Israel in the time of Acts. Then everything was ready from God's side. The Lamb was slain, Acts 3:18, 19, the Wedding could begin. The preparation was over Mat. 3:3; Luke 1:17. But Israel did not value it, it went its own way. It took things lightly, Heb. 2:3. Finally, the signs and wonders and powers of Pentecost had no effect for the good. They stayed in their ordinary farming and trade, see Mat. 13:22 (the thorns). The second invitation made some of them angry. They seized the servants and made their reproach. Think of Peter and John's imprisonment 4:12, to the Apostles reproach, 5:41 to Paul's persecution, Acts 8:3; 9:1. There are even killed. Think of Stephen Acts 7:59, 60, to James Acts 12:2. To speak with another parable: the husbandmen were not worthy of the vineyard.

    What was the King doing now? He became angry and sent His warlords. The murderers were destroyed, their city set on fire. That happened in the year 70. The Romans trampled Israel, set Jerusalem on fire, killed many, and made Israel's national existence impossible in Canaan.

    Between v. 7 and 8 of Mat. 22 lies the present dispensation of the mystery just as it is between the pleasant year of the Lord and the day of the vengeance of our God. The King had to interrupt the wedding party. After all, He must have sent his army, and waged war. How could He then think of keeping a wedding? Then — how long is not revealed and can not yet be seen — He again sends servants and says: The wedding is ready, but the guests were not worthy of it. The wedding therefore remains, God keeps His involvement with Israel. He reconnects the line. The guests of the previous dispensation were not worthy of attendance, nor were the husbandmen the vineyard. But God will give the vineyard to other husbandmen. These are not the Gentiles, because for others it says « Allos » others of the same kind. Israel is thus restored and gets other husbandmen. This is how the Lord connects again, because it still applies to the Kingdom of Heaven from v. 2. And if that there is Israel, it is the same in v. 8 with the new invitation.

    This is the earthly calling to Israel, not to the Gentiles who are blessed with faithful Abraham and are as the stars of Heaven, that is if they have Abraham's faith.

    Aristarkos
    I have read and noted your reply. Thank you for your effort. Your understanding of the whole Bible being about Israel, and the doctrines that must logically come out of it, is so far removed from my understanding that any discussion would be fruitless. Please allow me to bow out gracefully from discussion. But if you insist I will answer your main points. Thanks and God bless.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,412

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Sorry but your order is wrong.
    Rev 19 and 20 are indeed in chronological order.
    However Rev 21 and 22 gives further details of the Kingdom of God on earth and STARTS with the NHNE which STARTS when Jesus appears.
    Anything else doesn't fit with scripture.
    It is why Amils struggle with the PreMil position as they correctly conclude that the NHNE starts when Jesus returns.
    However a further problem is caused when people see a pristine world when the NHNE starts with the casting of Satan out of heaven.

    As for your reliance on the word "and":
    Rev 21:1* Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. (ESV)
    It can be translated as "then". However its meaning is simply that he saw something fresh which is not necessarily chronological in occurrence just as Rev 12:1 isn't chronological.
    There is indeed a connection between Rev 20 and 21 but it is NOT one of time.
    Further we read this:
    Isa 65:17* For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.*
    Isa 65:18* But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.*
    Isa 65:19* And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.*
    Isa 65:20* There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.*(KJV)

    Please explain WHEN this NHNE occurs? Is it when Jesus returns and is the MK?

    Your claim that there is no death in any of the NE is also incorrect. The statement is actually about the NJ.
    Rev 21:3* And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.*
    Rev 21:4* And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.*

    Do you notice how John uses the same words? What is the tabernacle of God? Sometimes we are simplistic about what we read when it is actually simple.


    I agree with your order, but note the Bride comes when those who are His.
    There is another thread as to whether Israel is raised when Jesus returns.
    There is death in the New Earth, at least for the MK while Satan is bound. It is ONLY after the end of the MK and the Final Judgement that death is ended for the whole NE.


    No, the emphasis is NOT on the Bride doing works. She has her part, but He has His. You correctly alluded to Ephesians 5:30-32 which harkens back to Genesis 2.
    Yet that whole passage of Ephesians 5 states it is Christ who makes her without spot or wrinkle, without which she has no righteous work.
    What righteous works are there for us to do? Only the work He has prepared for us. IOW we are responding to what He is doing.
    Her righteousness is ONLY possible because of what He does, so there is COMBINATION and He has done His part, and so we have our part to do, being reliant on Him.
    Now these are adornments rather than the cleansing and sanctifying etc.
    These are tied into the parables Jesus gave, but we mustn't confuse being without spot or blemish which He odes with our part or adorning.
    Thank you for laying out your objections. I can see that you have taken time and effort. Our main differences stem from how we appreciate language. If Revelation 21:1 starts with "And" (KJV) or "then" (ESV), I take it as a conjunction and a sequence, which most people would do since these are the rules of grammar that make our languages transmit the correct idea. I am strict to the last degree and you allow room for other meanings. But I have noticed when people are setting up their latest laptop, they are very strict with language because otherwise they will not reach the intended result. The smallest point or backstroke is accurately inserted.

    Next, if Christ reigns and conquers all enemies, the last being death, then there is simply no more death - whether in heaven, on earth, or anywhere. To say otherwise is to defy scripture. Now, notice the information of Revelation 21:3. "And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."
    1. The Tabernacle of God is (i) Christ, and (ii) the Church. Is then the verse addressing the Church or the nations? The Tabernacle being WITH men cannot mean these men are at the same time the Tabernacle.
    2. God dwells WITH men. But concerning the Church God dwells IN them. That's what makes them the Tabernacle.

    Thus, the Tabernacle is one thing and "men" must mean the nations. And it is among them that there is no death.

    Next, if we count, we have three resurrections. For the sake of this discussion I will ignore the few individual resurrections of Elijah, Elisha, our Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul. Christ is resurrected first. Then 2,000 years later the Church and Israel are resurrected. And then we have the "rest of the dead". That is, anybody and everybody who was not raised when Christ came. And Revelation 20:5 says; "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. ... ." By implication, the "REST" means NO EXCEPTIONS. So one thousand years after Christ starts to reign the "REST of the dead" are raised. Since there are no exceptions found anywhere, death is defeated.

    Finally, as a preempt to avoid another long discussion, I would like to briefly address the "Second Death". The Second Death is interchanged by scripture with "Gehenna", "Perdition" and the "Lake of Fire". And by studying these CONDITIONS we are able to establish that the Second Death is ONLY, and ALWAYS applied to LIVING men. Matthew 10:28 describes Gehenna, and if a man has his body and soul, he is alive. Isaiah 66:24 and Mark Chapter 9 agree with this. It is "their worm" and "their fire" which is personal. The word "hell" does not actually appear in scripture. It is a "traditional" rendering with no support. It is either Gehenna - the place of everlasting burning, Hades - the place of the souls of dead men, or Tartaroo - the subterranean prison of angels. In Revelation 20, Hades gives up ALL her dead. Every last man must vacate Hades.

    Thus;
    1. "Hell" is a tradition and a concept not found in the Bible
    2. Hades is a PLACE under the earth
    3. Tartaroo is a PLACE under the earth
    4. Gehenna is a CONDITION of a living man suffering extremely

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,885
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Yet this one thing we all agree on you claim is wrong.
    Most of the NT is about the Church.
    The gospels are the most strongly about Israel, but even there it isn't only about Israel.
    Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. Like most you are confused. The whole of Scripture is for us, not about us. The mistake you make by saying that the N.T. is about the Church is refuted quite easily. Like you say the Gospels are about Israel, it's King has arrived and wants to establish the Kingdom of Heaven. Acts is about Israel, until acts 10 no gentile is mentioned (Cornelius), I know you deny this but you have no proof. The letters written during Acts: the first seven of Paul are for the Church of God in which the Jew came first and was to make Israel Jealous (Rom. 2:9 « ... the Jew first, and also of the Gentile ») . The letters of John, James, Peter and Jude are about Israel, just look:

    1 John 2:7 « Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning ».

    Jas. 1:1 « James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting ».

    1 Pet. 1:1 Peter, a sent one of Jesus Christ, to the elect strangers of the Dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ».

    Jude 1:5 « I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once for all knew this, how that the LORD, having saved the People out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed them that believed not ».

    This is all about Israel, not Gentiles. I know « the Church » says otherwise, but there is also a « Church » which has no less then 1.3 billion members that says we have to pray to mother Mary. So what « all » say, doesn't say much at all.

    Aristarkos

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,885
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    I have read and noted your reply. Thank you for your effort. Your understanding of the whole Bible being about Israel, and the doctrines that must logically come out of it, is so far removed from my understanding that any discussion would be fruitless. Please allow me to bow out gracefully from discussion. But if you insist I will answer your main points. Thanks and God bless.
    I never insist on anybody answering Walls, so we agree to disagree. On a side note, I never said the whole Bible is about Israel, about 80 — 85% of it is. May the Lord bless you too.

    Aristarkos

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,145
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. Like most you are confused. The whole of Scripture is for us, not about us. The mistake you make by saying that the N.T. is about the Church is refuted quite easily. Like you say the Gospels are about Israel, it's King has arrived and wants to establish the Kingdom of Heaven.
    No confusion. It also isn't simply my personal opinion.
    I agree that the WHOLE of scripture is FOR us and not generaly TO us.
    Where your confusion arises is from the simple FACT that the early Church was comprised of Jews. Therefore statements about the Church would make reference to truths about them ALSO being Jews.
    The Gospels are NOT only about Israel, but are set in Israel with Jesus' main ministry being about Israel. Yet His teaching is NOT ONLY about Israel. It is in fact about the Church and about those who are part of His Kingdom.

    Acts is about Israel, until acts 10 no gentile is mentioned (Cornelius), I know you deny this but you have no proof.
    Interesting claim.
    Let me give you some proofs FROM Acts:
    Act 1:8* But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

    The very start of what Jesus says when He is leaving them is about Jerusalem AND Judea AND Samaria AND to the ends of the earth. So it IS about Israel, but it is also about MORE than Israel. It is about the ends of the earth.

    Act 2:8* And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?*
    Act 2:9* Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,*
    Act 2:10* Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome,*
    Act 2:11* both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”

    Notice in this verse we had been told of the places the people had come from, yet here there are FOUR groups made. The first is Jews, the second is Proselytes, the third Cretans and the last Arabians. Did you notice that Cretans and Arabians were NOT included in the previous list of nations?
    You see the previous list of nations were the places the Jews and Proselytes came from, yet we have two more, which are Cretans and Arabians, who were not Jews nor Proselytes. This list makes that clear.
    Further it was a REALITY that in Jerusalem there were people who were not Jews nor Proselytes, but were Romans and from other nations.
    So scripture tells us of more than the Jews and REALITY tells us of more.
    Act 4:24* And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,*
    Act 4:25* who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain?*
    Act 4:26* The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—*
    Act 4:27* for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

    Notice in this prayer that the Believers acknowledge Gentiles in this city. So again scripture commends the REALITY we know of Gentiles who will hear.

    Act 8:4* Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.*
    Act 8:5* Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.

    The city of Samaria was NOT Jewish. Anyone claiming that it was is clueless about the situation between the Jews and the Samaritans.
    Act 8:14* Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,*
    Act 8:15* who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,*

    So Peter and John also go.

    Act 8:27* And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship

    Notice that we have an Ethiopian, who was possibly a Proselyte as he had come to Jerusalem to worship. Yet he then goes on his way back to Ethiopia.

    The simple FACT is that there were many who were not Jews who received the gospel BEFORE Acts 10. We know that it was predominantly among the Jews but they then spread it abroad.

    Now BOTH the gospel of Luke and that of Acts were written NOT for a Jew but a Greek. Its purpose therefore was NOT TO the Jew, but TO the Gentile:
    Act 1:1* In the first book, O Theophilus,

    The letters written during Acts: the first seven of Paul are for the Church of God in which the Jew came first and was to make Israel Jealous (Rom. 2:9 « ... the Jew first, and also of the Gentile »).
    A false distinction. Paul is writing to people who were not only Jews, but was highlighting things they had not known, how God had worked amongst the Jew first.
    However the focus is on the Church in every letter. IOW a persons background may affect how they appreciate the gospel, but the instructions and directions are for the Church.

    The letters of John, James, Peter and Jude are about Israel, just look:
    1 John 2:7 « Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning »
    .
    Nope, NOT about Israel, it is about the old commandment they had from the start of their walk as Christians. This isn't about the commandments of Moses, but the commandments of Jesus - It is the commandment to love one another.

    Jas. 1:1 « James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting ».
    This is for the church. It is TO those who were scattered from Israel.
    Acts 4 speaks of this scattering. So though the recipients were of Israel, they were ALL in the Church and were NOT receiving them because they were Jews.

    1 Pet. 1:1 Peter, a sent one of Jesus Christ, to the elect strangers of the Dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ».
    Yes this is to the Jews, but again it is Jewish Christians and thus to the Church.

    Jude 1:5 « I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once for all knew this, how that the LORD, having saved the People out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed them that believed not ».
    Again it is sent to the Church who had been taught these things or were ethnically Jewish or Proselytes.

    This is all about Israel, not Gentiles. I know « the Church » says otherwise, but there is also a « Church » which has no less then 1.3 billion members that says we have to pray to mother Mary. So what « all » say, doesn't say much at all.
    Aristarkos
    No, it is NOT all about Israel. It is ABOUT God reaching the world through Israel and through the Church.
    Nothing you posted shows it is NOT for the Church. Al you have posted shows that the Church was predominantly Jews for the start of its life, which no one disputes.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,145
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Thank you for laying out your objections. I can see that you have taken time and effort. Our main differences stem from how we appreciate language. If Revelation 21:1 starts with "And" (KJV) or "then" (ESV), I take it as a conjunction and a sequence, which most people would do since these are the rules of grammar that make our languages transmit the correct idea. I am strict to the last degree and you allow room for other meanings. But I have noticed when people are setting up their latest laptop, they are very strict with language because otherwise they will not reach the intended result. The smallest point or backstroke is accurately inserted.
    I think I am far more accurate than you. However there are TWO separate principles which you don't seem to appreciate.
    The first is in regards to the difference between simplistic and simple. Yo are trying to take a simplistic approach, whereas we are called to use a simple approach. A simplistic approach tries to make everything only have a single meaning. A simple approach tries to take the appropriate meaning.
    The second is in regards to meaning. The word "and" has different functions depending on what it is connected with.

    Now the words "then" and "and" do denote a conjunction and a sequence. However that does NOT necessarily mean it is a chronological sequence that is being given. For example it can be a list. I have an apple "and" an orange. Here the word "and" is not being shown in any time sequence, but simply to show I have one thing, I also have another thing, and these two things I have AT THE SAME TIME.

    Therefore when we read the word "and" we need to take what else is stated and see HOW it is conjoined with what was said previously.
    An example is:
    I have a friend called John who has lived in Africa for the last twenty years, and when he had to answer the call of nature he would go in the outhouse, as there was no internal plumbing in his house.

    Here there is no chronological sequence. Rather the word "and" places the "answering the call" to WITHIN the twenty year period.

    As someone who is both a linguist and an IT specialist who has done programming, I fully get your point and I am highlighting that what you are stating is insufficient to clarify what meaning we should be giving to Rev 21:1.

    Next, if Christ reigns and conquers all enemies, the last being death, then there is simply no more death - whether in heaven, on earth, or anywhere. To say otherwise is to defy scripture.
    Here you have not caused me any issue. I see the MK starts when Jesus returns. All enemies are NOT conquered at the moment of His return. This takes time and will not be finished until AFTER the MK when Satan is released and then the Final Judgement.
    So I am not defying a single scripture.
    Your confusion arises because you are reading Rev 21:4 as if it is applied to the entire world, when it is CONTEXTUALLY and PROPHETICALLY only applying to the NJ.

    Now, notice the information of Revelation 21:3. "And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."
    1. The Tabernacle of God is (i) Christ, and (ii) the Church. Is then the verse addressing the Church or the nations? The Tabernacle being WITH men cannot mean these men are at the same time the Tabernacle.
    2. God dwells WITH men. But concerning the Church God dwells IN them. That's what makes them the Tabernacle.

    Thus, the Tabernacle is one thing and "men" must mean the nations. And it is among them that there is no death.
    Incorrect, the Tabernacle is clearly defined through out scripture. It is His temple, the place where He rules.
    Heb 9:2* For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.*
    Heb 9:3* And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;*

    Here we have the historical tabernacle.

    Heb 9:11* But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;*
    Heb 9:12* Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.*

    Here we have what the historical tabernacle was a shadow of - the tabernacle in heaven.
    Rev 21:3 is highlighting that the heavenly tabernacle has come down to the earth. So God will dwell with Man on earth.
    The tabernacle is NOT Christ and NEVER has been Christ. We are NEVER the tabernacle except symbolically.
    The verse is stating what the situation in the NJ is.

    Next, if we count, we have three resurrections. For the sake of this discussion I will ignore the few individual resurrections of Elijah, Elisha, our Lord Jesus, Peter and Paul. Christ is resurrected first. Then 2,000 years later the Church and Israel are resurrected. And then we have the "rest of the dead". That is, anybody and everybody who was not raised when Christ came. And Revelation 20:5 says; "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. ... ." By implication, the "REST" means NO EXCEPTIONS. So one thousand years after Christ starts to reign the "REST of the dead" are raised. Since there are no exceptions found anywhere, death is defeated.
    I thought you were ignoring Jesus' resurrection, or do you mean those He raised form the dead...
    We agree Christ is first.
    We disagree that the Church and Israel are raised second. I stated there is another thread on that. The Church is raised second.
    I agree with your third is the rest of the dead (which includes Israel)

    Finally, as a preempt to avoid another long discussion, I would like to briefly address the "Second Death". The Second Death is interchanged by scripture with "Gehenna", "Perdition" and the "Lake of Fire". And by studying these CONDITIONS we are able to establish that the Second Death is ONLY, and ALWAYS applied to LIVING men. Matthew 10:28 describes Gehenna, and if a man has his body and soul, he is alive. Isaiah 66:24 and Mark Chapter 9 agree with this. It is "their worm" and "their fire" which is personal. The word "hell" does not actually appear in scripture. It is a "traditional" rendering with no support. It is either Gehenna - the place of everlasting burning, Hades - the place of the souls of dead men, or Tartaroo - the subterranean prison of angels. In Revelation 20, Hades gives up ALL her dead. Every last man must vacate Hades.
    The word hell is simply a Saxon word meaning "hole" which is why it was used for hades, which is a Greek word. Now Hell in the KJV was used for both Gehenna and Hades which leads to confusion.

    Thus;
    1. "Hell" is a tradition and a concept not found in the Bible
    2. Hades is a PLACE under the earth
    3. Tartaroo is a PLACE under the earth
    4. Gehenna is a CONDITION of a living man suffering extremely
    I am not sure why you wrote this about Hell when I made no reference to it. All death only affects someone who is living. If they are not alive then they can't die.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,412

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I think I am far more accurate than you. However there are TWO separate principles which you don't seem to appreciate.
    The first is in regards to the difference between simplistic and simple. Yo are trying to take a simplistic approach, whereas we are called to use a simple approach. A simplistic approach tries to make everything only have a single meaning. A simple approach tries to take the appropriate meaning.
    The second is in regards to meaning. The word "and" has different functions depending on what it is connected with.

    Now the words "then" and "and" do denote a conjunction and a sequence. However that does NOT necessarily mean it is a chronological sequence that is being given. For example it can be a list. I have an apple "and" an orange. Here the word "and" is not being shown in any time sequence, but simply to show I have one thing, I also have another thing, and these two things I have AT THE SAME TIME.

    Therefore when we read the word "and" we need to take what else is stated and see HOW it is conjoined with what was said previously.
    An example is:
    I have a friend called John who has lived in Africa for the last twenty years, and when he had to answer the call of nature he would go in the outhouse, as there was no internal plumbing in his house.

    Here there is no chronological sequence. Rather the word "and" places the "answering the call" to WITHIN the twenty year period.

    As someone who is both a linguist and an IT specialist who has done programming, I fully get your point and I am highlighting that what you are stating is insufficient to clarify what meaning we should be giving to Rev 21:1.


    Here you have not caused me any issue. I see the MK starts when Jesus returns. All enemies are NOT conquered at the moment of His return. This takes time and will not be finished until AFTER the MK when Satan is released and then the Final Judgement.
    So I am not defying a single scripture.
    Your confusion arises because you are reading Rev 21:4 as if it is applied to the entire world, when it is CONTEXTUALLY and PROPHETICALLY only applying to the NJ.


    Incorrect, the Tabernacle is clearly defined through out scripture. It is His temple, the place where He rules.
    Heb 9:2* For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.*
    Heb 9:3* And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;*

    Here we have the historical tabernacle.

    Heb 9:11* But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;*
    Heb 9:12* Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.*

    Here we have what the historical tabernacle was a shadow of - the tabernacle in heaven.
    Rev 21:3 is highlighting that the heavenly tabernacle has come down to the earth. So God will dwell with Man on earth.
    The tabernacle is NOT Christ and NEVER has been Christ. We are NEVER the tabernacle except symbolically.
    The verse is stating what the situation in the NJ is.


    I thought you were ignoring Jesus' resurrection, or do you mean those He raised form the dead...
    We agree Christ is first.
    We disagree that the Church and Israel are raised second. I stated there is another thread on that. The Church is raised second.
    I agree with your third is the rest of the dead (which includes Israel)


    The word hell is simply a Saxon word meaning "hole" which is why it was used for hades, which is a Greek word. Now Hell in the KJV was used for both Gehenna and Hades which leads to confusion.


    I am not sure why you wrote this about Hell when I made no reference to it. All death only affects someone who is living. If they are not alive then they can't die.
    Thank you for your reply. I think we have diverted from the theme of the thread - The Bride. We have also laid forth our arguments at length. I will let my postings stand for any interested reader, just as you will no doubt let yours stand. Our different approaches to language and grammar will no doubt lead to us meeting again in debate. Till then, go well, God bless and thanks for the exchange.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,526

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    I see it as Paul states to the ones who followed the law and had the faith of Abraham thus it is individuals not whole nations
    But the word used is "nations," and not "individuals." Obviously, Abraham was an individual, and individuals are included in nations. But the idea conveyed by *God Himself* is that these individuals must constitute social entities called "nations." It would not, in other words, be a fulfillment of the prophecy to just see Abraham saved as an individual. He has to produce a collective of believers like himself, who together constitute a "nation."

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,885
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    No confusion. It also isn't simply my personal opinion.
    I agree that the WHOLE of scripture is FOR us and not generaly TO us.
    Where your confusion arises is from the simple FACT that the early Church was comprised of Jews. Therefore statements about the Church would make reference to truths about them ALSO being Jews.
    The Gospels are NOT only about Israel, but are set in Israel with Jesus' main ministry being about Israel. Yet His teaching is NOT ONLY about Israel. It is in fact about the Church and about those who are part of His Kingdom.
    If you reply without a single quote, it is your personal opinion. (See your post)

    Interesting claim.
    Let me give you some proofs FROM Acts:
    Act 1:8* But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

    The very start of what Jesus says when He is leaving them is about Jerusalem AND Judea AND Samaria AND to the ends of the earth. So it IS about Israel, but it is also about MORE than Israel. It is about the ends of the earth.
    You are aware the word « earth » and « land » are the same in Greek? Since it is about Israel, land would have been far better translation.

    Act 2:8* And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?*
    Act 2:9* Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,*
    Act 2:10* Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome,*
    Act 2:11* both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”

    Notice in this verse we had been told of the places the people had come from, yet here there are FOUR groups made. The first is Jews, the second is Proselytes, the third Cretans and the last Arabians. Did you notice that Cretans and Arabians were NOT included in the previous list of nations?
    You see the previous list of nations were the places the Jews and Proselytes came from, yet we have two more, which are Cretans and Arabians, who were not Jews nor Proselytes. This list makes that clear.
    Further it was a REALITY that in Jerusalem there were people who were not Jews nor Proselytes, but were Romans and from other nations.
    You also are aware the Jews were scattered for centuries, so they came from everywhere to Jerusalem for the Jewish feasts? So no Roman Gentiles but Roman Jews and Jews from other nations.

    So scripture tells us of more than the Jews and REALITY tells us of more.
    Act 4:24* And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,*
    Act 4:25* who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain?*
    Act 4:26* The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—*
    Act 4:27* for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

    Notice in this prayer that the Believers acknowledge Gentiles in this city. So again scripture commends the REALITY we know of Gentiles who will hear.
    I hope you didn't miss « the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed », if you think these were believing Gentiles, how's that for context?

    Act 8:4* Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.*
    Act 8:5* Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.

    The city of Samaria was NOT Jewish. Anyone claiming that it was is clueless about the situation between the Jews and the Samaritans.
    Act 8:14* Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,*
    Act 8:15* who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,*
    I've said it before, Samaria takes a special place in Scripture, « ... they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles » Acts 15:3, and of course our Lord who says in Mat. 10:5 « ... Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not ». The Samaritan woman who says to our Lord in John 4:12 « Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well ... ».

    So Peter and John also go.
    I don't think so.


    Act 8:27* And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship

    Notice that we have an Ethiopian, who was possibly a Proselyte as he had come to Jerusalem to worship. Yet he then goes on his way back to Ethiopia.
    So? You are aware there are a lot of Ethiopian Jews? Ethiopia is already mentioned in Num. 12:1 because Moses married an Ethiopian woman.

    The simple FACT is that there were many who were not Jews who received the gospel BEFORE Acts 10. We know that it was predominantly among the Jews but they then spread it abroad.
    As I showed you again, the simple fact is not so simple because there were only Jews, proselytes and Samaritans.

    Now BOTH the gospel of Luke and that of Acts were written NOT for a Jew but a Greek. Its purpose therefore was NOT TO the Jew, but TO the Gentile:
    Act 1:1* In the first book, O Theophilus,
    You are aware that Theophilus means « beloved of God »? A common Roman name, which doesn't mean this was a Gentile but a scattered Jew who lived there? The Romans were the boss in about the whole of Europe and small Asia, so that makes it impossible for a Jew to have a Roman name?

    A false distinction. Paul is writing to people who were not only Jews, but was highlighting things they had not known, how God had worked amongst the Jew first.
    However the focus is on the Church in every letter. IOW a persons background may affect how they appreciate the gospel, but the instructions and directions are for the Church.
    Well you are stretching Scripture, Paul always first went to the synagogue, Acts 13:14, Acts 14:1, 17:1, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:19, 19:8, so this is not the foundation of a Gentile church.

    Nope, NOT about Israel, it is about the old commandment they had from the start of their walk as Christians. This isn't about the commandments of Moses, but the commandments of Jesus - It is the commandment to love one another.
    Really?

    This is for the church. It is TO those who were scattered from Israel.
    Acts 4 speaks of this scattering. So though the recipients were of Israel, they were ALL in the Church and were NOT receiving them because they were Jews.
    That is a nice twist, it is to the scattered from Israel, but it is for « the Church »?

    Yes this is to the Jews, but again it is Jewish Christians and thus to the Church.
    So like I said, to Jews.

    Again it is sent to the Church who had been taught these things or were ethnically Jewish or Proselytes.
    So like I said, no Gentiles.

    No, it is NOT all about Israel. It is ABOUT God reaching the world through Israel and through the Church.
    Nothing you posted shows it is NOT for the Church. Al you have posted shows that the Church was predominantly Jews for the start of its life, which no one disputes.
    No it is about Israel and some Gentiles being grafted into the Olive tree, to make Israel Jealous.

    Aristarkos

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,334
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    You seem to be quite confused, where in the above quote is the bride and bridegroom mentioned? The 144.000 — which are from Israel, 12000 from each tribe (Rev. 7:5 — 8) — are not the bride, that is another assumption. Like I said in an earlier post, the Lamb is only mentioned in connection with Israel and Israel has an earthly calling.

    Aristarkos
    Not at all, thank you. FUTURE picture of the bride seen with the bridegroom.

    How can the wife if it encompasses the church make herself ready BEFORE the resurrection?

    Rev 19
    7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

    Wou are those which are glad and rejoice over the wife, who are not the wife?

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,334
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who is the bride?

    To all those on the thread consider this.....

    How can the wife if it encompasses the church make herself ready BEFORE the resurrection?

    Rev 19
    7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

    Who are those which are glad and rejoice, that are not the wife?

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,145
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who is the bride?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    If you reply without a single quote, it is your personal opinion. (See your post)
    Nope, you don't have to quote scripture for it not to be personal opinion. Conversely by quoting scripture does not stop it being personal opinion.
    Personal opinion is when I claim something which I cannot claim someone else has also claimed. They may have done but I do not reference them.
    You however had stated that the Church had this wrong, which means I am echoing the Church's opinion and thus it is NOT personal.
    I do however have personal reasons for what I claim and which I can back with scripture.

    You also failed to deal with the distinction made.

    You are aware the word « earth » and « land » are the same in Greek? Since it is about Israel, land would have been far better translation.
    You are aware that this distinction makes no difference.
    It is NOT referring solely to the land of Israel as other places are also included. Jesus did NOT say, take the gospel to the borders of Israel.

    You also are aware the Jews were scattered for centuries, so they came from everywhere to Jerusalem for the Jewish feasts? So no Roman Gentiles but Roman Jews and Jews from other nations.
    I am aware of that and I highlighted for you that those Jews and Proselytes who had come from other nations and Rome where all listed together and noted as being Jews and Proselytes, however Cretans and Arabians were NOT part of that list, but mentioned AFTERWARDS.
    So you have failed to deal with this FACT as well.

    I hope you didn't miss « the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed », if you think these were believing Gentiles, how's that for context?
    I didn't say a single one was a believing Gentile from the quote. I was confirming from scripture that there weren't ONLY Jews involved in the death of Jesus nor that ONLY Jews were around for Pentecost.

    I've said it before, Samaria takes a special place in Scripture, « ... they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles » Acts 15:3, and of course our Lord who says in Mat. 10:5 « ... Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not ». The Samaritan woman who says to our Lord in John 4:12 « Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well ... ».
    You can make as many claims as you want. Samaria is still NOT Jewish.
    Your quote from Acts 15:3 doesn't help you. Note where it is stated:
    Act 15:3* So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.*

    Are you now claiming Phoenicia is Jewish?
    Act 14:27* And when they arrived and gathered the church together, they declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.

    This happened in Antioch. The same news they then took elsewhere. Are you claiming the entire church of Antioch was Jewish?
    What you seem to struggle with is that the majority was Jewish. Therefore the outlook was Jewish, but this was not exclusively Jewish.

    I don't think so.
    So you deny scripture? I quoted it for you and you deny it.
    Act 8:14* Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,*
    Act 8:15* who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

    Pretty clear that Peter and John went to Samaria and prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit and they did.

    So? You are aware there are a lot of Ethiopian Jews? Ethiopia is already mentioned in Num. 12:1 because Moses married an Ethiopian woman.
    Ethiopia is mentioned a lot in the bible, so is Egypt and Syria and Assyria etc. This is because there are links between them.
    Would a Jew be a Eunuch? I don't believe so.
    Moses' descendants didn't go and settle in Egypt.
    It is simple FACT that a Church was started in Ethiopia - you can research it yourself.

    As I showed you again, the simple fact is not so simple because there were only Jews, proselytes and Samaritans.
    As I showed you the simple FACT is that there were NOT only Jews and Proselytes, but there were also Samaritans. A Samaritan is NOT a Jew. Further the FACT is that there were also others who were NOT Jews. Cretans and Arabians mentioned in Acts 2. Also other Gentiles including an Ethiopian.

    You are aware that Theophilus means « beloved of God »? A common Roman name, which doesn't mean this was a Gentile but a scattered Jew who lived there? The Romans were the boss in about the whole of Europe and small Asia, so that makes it impossible for a Jew to have a Roman name?
    It is a possibility that it could be a Jew who had taken a Greek name (NOT Roman). It is more probable that there was no individual at all, but that Luke was simply writing for anyone who would see themselves as Beloved of God (or God Friend).
    The simple point is that Luke was NOT writing for a Jew but for someone who was versed in Greek and needing things explaining, which a Jew would not.

    Well you are stretching Scripture, Paul always first went to the synagogue, Acts 13:14, Acts 14:1, 17:1, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:19, 19:8, so this is not the foundation of a Gentile church.
    Not stretching a single scripture. I am well aware that Paul went to the synagogue first.
    The Church though was made up of Jews and Gentiles. This is what you don't seem able to understand.
    Initially it was predominantly Jewish, and then in certain places predominantly Gentile. However ALL of Paul's letters were not about being Jewish but about being the Church.

    Really?
    Yes, really. If you CANNOT read something in CONTEXT nor connect with what else John wrote then I am not surprised you struggle with who things are written for.
    1Jn 4:21* And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

    When was this commandment given?
    Joh 15:17* These things I command you, so that you will love one another.*

    This is the old commandment of Jesus, which is new.

    That is a nice twist, it is to the scattered from Israel, but it is for « the Church »?
    It is what it is. The SIMPLE fact is that these were the Church who were scattered and in need of instruction.

    So like I said, to Jews.
    No, to the Church, who were mainly Jews.

    So like I said, no Gentiles.
    Incorrect, Gentiles and Jews.

    No it is about Israel and some Gentiles being grafted into the Olive tree, to make Israel Jealous.
    Aristarkos
    No it is NOT about Israel. It is about those who are His. This includes some of Israel and those who are not.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,885
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Who is the bride?

    We are so far apart, it's pointless to continue the discussion. God bless.

    Aristarkos

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Father, His Son, and His Bride
    By Soldier_of_Faith in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Jan 24th 2015, 04:24 PM
  2. Information The Bride
    By Stucky in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec 8th 2009, 07:56 AM
  3. Who is the Bride of Christ?
    By ZAB in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: Sep 3rd 2009, 01:52 AM
  4. The Heart of the Bride
    By ZAB in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 16th 2009, 03:43 AM
  5. For the Bride
    By Dani H in forum Poetry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Oct 24th 2008, 03:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •